PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be further considered on Wednesday 11 July.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Small Arms

Stephen McCabe: What measures her Department is taking to reduce the availability of small arms in developing countries.

Clare Short: In the post-cold war world, conflict and the suffering arising from conflict are concentrated in the developing world. The widespread availability of small arms is feeding conflict and blocking development. The United Kingdom supports stronger international controls on the supply of such weapons and supports local programmes to destroy weapons and resolve and prevent conflict.
	Next week, I will attend the United Nations special session designed to agree an international programme of action.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that one of the major problems is the lack of licensing controls on arms dealers? Can we expect her to take advantage of the forthcoming Export Control Bill to give us much tougher regulation of this unsavoury business?

Clare Short: Yes, I agree. There are two sets of problems. Many small arms are circulating, for example, in Africa, so we need to extract them. However, arms are also being exported—particularly from the former Soviet countries that have big arms industries—and they are not controlled. Some of those sales do not come through Britain—people are not allowed to sell arms without a licence from Britain—but they are brokered from Britain. We shall take control over that in the forthcoming Bill, and that is a very important change to clean up our act.

Tony Baldry: In the previous Parliament, four Select Committees, including the Select Committee on International Development, recommended that there should be prior scrutiny by a Committee of the House of the United Kingdom's defence sales, including small arms sales. Does the Secretary of State support that approach?

Clare Short: No, the Government's view is that that would not be helpful. The hon. Gentleman might know that, since our Government were formed, we have been allowed to object to a licence on the ground that an arms sales would prevent development and the proper spending of money even if the arms were not to be used for external aggression or internal repression. As yet, we cannot cumulate those sales, so the power is not as effective as it might be. That is my greatest concern, and if he could help me with that, I would be very grateful.

EU Development Programmes

Iain Luke: What action her Department has taken to improve the quality of EU development programmes.

Hilary Benn: The European Community's record on the efficient delivery of aid has been poor. That is why the United Kingdom has pressed hard since 1997 to improve the effectiveness of EC development programmes, focus their range of activity and make poverty reduction their central objective. The reforms now put in place go some way towards achieving these improvements, but we intend to keep up the pressure.

Iain Luke: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. What plans does he have to raise these serious issues with Members of the European Parliament and Commissioners, so that we, the Council, Commissioners and the European Parliament together can strengthen the EU's significant contribution to poverty reduction and to development?

Hilary Benn: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. In return, I welcome him to his first International Development questions.
	As my hon. Friend will be aware, the central problem is that, over the past 10 years, the proportion of EC aid going to low-income countries has fallen from 75 to 51 per cent. We have managed to achieve an agreement that poverty reduction should form the central focus of EC development aid. I will be in Brussels next week to meet Members of the European Parliament to say to them that the EC has now accepted an agenda for reform, but the whole House will want the changes to be implemented in practice.

Jenny Tonge: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to ministerial office. Is he aware that the 1998 Court of Auditors report into EC aid to South Africa showed that significant proportions of money for the AIDS programme went unspent for nearly four years? Does he not think that, if the EU were to add its support to the new global AIDS fund, yet another layer of bureaucracy would be created? Can he also ensure that EU spending on AIDS goes on improving existing projects on health care, education and the development of vaccines and not on delivering cheaper drugs?

Hilary Benn: I also thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. As she is well aware, the basic problem with EU spending is precisely that the EU cannot spend the money that it has. She gave the example of South Africa, which is one of a number to which we could refer. We certainly wish the EU to make a contribution to the global health fund, but the most important thing is to make sure that the money that is allocated is spent effectively. That is what we are working to achieve.

Tom Clarke: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to his portfolio. Does he recall that the European Union played a significant part in the removal of Fujimori from Peru and in the democratic elections that followed, which led to President Toledo being elected? Given the earthquakes of the past few weeks, and our bilateral contribution, as well as that of the EU, does my hon. Friend welcome the policies to improve the relationship between Peru, the EU and this country?

Hilary Benn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his welcome. The action taken in response to the earthquakes in Peru, both bilaterally and through the EU, was very important, and it gave me an early insight into the effectiveness of the Department's disaster response arrangements. He makes the important point that the EU has considerable potential to make a difference, which is why we are putting so much time and effort into trying to make sure, through the reform process that has begun, that the EU can fulfil more of that potential than it has in the past.

Cheryl Gillan: On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, may I warmly welcome the hon. Gentleman to his no doubt rightful place on the Front Bench? I know that he is carrying on a proud family tradition, and I think that he is a sound addition to the International Development team.
	One point on which the Secretary of State and I see eye to eye is our desire to end the appalling inefficiencies of the EU aid programme, so I hope that the Under-Secretary will keep up pressure on the EU. Is he aware of the Auditors report of 12 June, which says that the EU decision-making procedures do not allow for a rapid reaction to emergencies? Is he satisfied that the reforms that have just been implemented will speed up the reaction? Does he believe that it is desirable to place a ceiling on emergency payments of 3 million euros per crisis, or does he agree that crises should be evaluated individually? Will he join me in calling for an evaluation? If not, we will be in the absurd position of having an arbitrary financial ceiling elevating bureaucratic rules above the saving of human lives.

Hilary Benn: I thank the hon. Lady for her warm welcome—at the risk of boring the House. I agree that it makes sense for ourselves and the EU to examine the way in which the European Community Humanitarian Office, in particular, operates. ECHO has probably been more successful than other parts of the EU in spending the available resources, but not as good as it could be. There is, in Ms Adinolfi, a new director general who is very committed to implementing the agenda for reform. We will need to reflect on that. The hon. Lady makes a good point about the EU's effectiveness and about the limits on spending to deal with humanitarian disasters.

Fabian Hamilton: I, too, would like warmly to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and Leeds colleague—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to Question 3.

Primary Education

Fabian Hamilton: How she intends to encourage (a) more spending on primary education and (b) less spending on arms in the world's poorest countries.

Hilary Benn: I am sorry about that, Mr. Speaker. I was basking in the glow of all those warm words.
	The elimination of poverty will take place only with improved levels of education. The UK has consistently campaigned for universal primary education to be a central focus of poverty reduction programmes as part of the debt relief process, and over the last four years we have committed more than £600 million to support primary education in developing countries.
	We are also working to reduce the demand for and supply of weapons, and will be introducing new controls on the export of arms from the UK.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I know that the Secretary of State attended the Dakar United Nations world education forum in April last year, when the declaration was made about the establishment of universal primary education by 2015. He will know that Oxfam has set up its global initiative for a monitoring programme and a budget of £8 billion per annum to ensure that the targets set by Dakar are met. Does my hon. Friend agree that £8 billion for universal primary education is considerably less than the world spends on arms in one month? Does he agree also that it is essential that the targets set for primary education ensure that girls have equal access?

Hilary Benn: I agree, especially with my hon. Friend's point about the education of girls. As the House will be aware, of the 113 million primary age children who are not in school, two thirds are girls. If we can get developing countries to ensure that girls have equal access to education, considerable benefits will flow for development in those countries as a result.

Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman consider marking his welcome assumption of office by taking an initiative? Will he appoint a special articulate ambassador to go to some of those poorer countries, and will he consider for that role the reluctantly noble and former right hon. Member for Chesterfield?

Hilary Benn: I am being led into dangerous waters. I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman's offer was a job application. However, he will not take it amiss if I decline it on the ground that we already have a most formidable advocate on those issues—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Debt Relief

Bob Blizzard: If she will make a statement on recent progress made in debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries initiatives.

Clare Short: Twenty three countries have now qualified for relief under the heavily indebted poor countries—or HIPC—initiative. More than $53 billion of debt relief has been agreed for those countries, which together owe $74 billion, so most of their debt is written off. The money released is directly linked to poverty reduction.
	The impact of that debt reduction means that social expenditure in those countries is projected to rise by an average of $1.7 billion per year. We hope that, in addition, Ghana, Sierra Leone and, possibly, Ethiopia will qualify for relief this year, but most of the remaining 10 eligible countries are affected by conflict or have no commitment to reform. We need greater progress in conflict resolution to bring debt relief to the remaining 10 heavily indebted poor countries.

Bob Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and congratulate her on leading the world in a vital initiative which may do more than many other things to relieve poverty. She has mentioned that the money will be spent on things such as health and education. How is that spending being monitored and what can we do to ensure that countries that are benefiting from debt relief do not fall into new debt?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The most important achievement of the enhanced HIPC package is the commitment of countries to preparing poverty reduction strategies, openly consulting their people about all their economic policies, including how they mean to grow the economy and how they will use aid, debt relief and their own revenues to drive forward social programmes for all. The new instrument will be used for monitoring and for countries' better accountability to their own people. That is a transformation of the way in which the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank work in such countries—it is more open, more poverty focused and more participatory.
	I very much agree with my hon. Friend that we must make sure that those countries do not get into debt again. We need improved practice in export credit procedures across the world so that loans are not guaranteed for bad projects that bankrupt countries. We shall try to work on that at the export credits committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to try to get higher standards across the world.

Gary Streeter: I congratulate the right hon. Lady on continuing in her important role of spearheading our country's attack on global poverty, which is possibly the greatest moral challenge facing our generation. I pay tribute to the genuine work that has been done on debt relief.
	Has the Secretary of State seen the United Nations report commissioned by Kofi Annan, which said last week that debt relief has taken a long time and, in many cases, has not gone far enough? It calls, in part, for a new initiative on debt relief. I pay tribute to the progress that has been made, but does the Secretary of State agree that there is now a need for a new momentum? Does she have any specific plans to give that momentum to this important issue?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and agree that this is the most important moral issue for the world; it is also the most important issue in terms of the sustainability of the planet. If we do not make progress, we will have increasing catastrophes, so it is in our self-interest to pay much more attention to these matters.
	I do not agree with those who say that we need debt relief for more countries, including middle-income countries that have managed their debts badly and need the Paris Club to recycle those debts and get better economic management. I do not agree with the current drop the debt campaign for 100 per cent. relief for those who are already getting debt relief and owe money to the IMF and the World Bank. We should not privilege countries according to whom they owe money; we should go by need. The point of the HIPC initiative for the 41 countries that are so indebted that they can never pay is to relieve the burden of debt so that they can adopt good social and economic policies. They will continue to need aid and other support for years, but we should get debt out of the way and better economic management in place. Then we can support such countries in building up their economies and providing public services, rather than just providing more and more debt relief.

Gary Streeter: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Is not this weekend's summit in Genoa an opportunity, however, for our country to continue to take the lead in debt relief? Is she aware that if her Government continue to lead the international community on the forgiveness of unpayable debt and pursue the issue ruthlessly until all the world's poorest nations receive a real dividend, she and her Government will have and will deserve the full support of Opposition Members?

Clare Short: It is very important in Genoa to drive on and to keep the 23 countries on track. There were wobbles in Zambia and it would be a terrible setback if its programmes fell away. We must move Ghana forward; it has just had elections and needs some help, as do Sierra Leone and Ethiopia. We need to keep everyone to the agreement that, as countries are exiting the initiative, we consider sustainability, as oil price rises are throwing things out of kilter. The other thing that we want to achieve at Genoa is the establishment of a health fund for the supply of drugs and commodities, to bring down prices, increase availability and lever in research. That needs to be complemented by the establishment of health systems through poverty-reduction strategies. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for those efforts.

Intellectual Property Rights

David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on the progress of her Department's commission on intellectual property.

Clare Short: The commission on intellectual property rights promised in our White Paper was established in April. It is tasked with considering how international intellectual property agreements can most benefit developing countries and poor people. Its membership includes an impressive range of experts originating from Argentina, India, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. It has embarked on a series of studies and consultations. Its recommendations will be submitted to me in spring 2002.

David Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that it is particularly important that the views of developing countries are properly heard on all aspects of the intellectual property regime, particularly those concerning access to genetic resources and the development of drugs to treat terminal disease? How will she specifically ensure that the voices of developing countries will be heard in the commission's deliberations?

Clare Short: Two members of the commission are prestigious intellectual property experts—one from Argentina and the other from India—so it is an international body. It will be taking evidence and visiting developing countries to do so.
	Many people assume that an intellectual property regime is not in the interests of the poorest countries, but I doubt that. There is no research into the diseases of poverty because pharmaceutical companies would not receive any return for it. We need a reasonable and fair global intellectual property regime and cheaper drugs in poorer countries, with companies able to charge higher prices in richer countries. The commission will consider issues such as a global system. Improving the relevance of intellectual property law to the poor of the world in developing countries is the commission's whole purpose.

EU Aid

Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on delivery of EU aid.

Clare Short: As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was saying, the UK has led the effort over the past four years to expose the ineffectiveness and lack of poverty focus in European Community development programmes and to implement a strong reform agenda. It has now been agreed that, in order to increase effectiveness, poverty reduction should be the central objective of EC development programmes, implementation procedures should be streamlined and the EC's range of activity limited. We will continue to keep up the pressure, and I hope that all parties represented in this House will encourage their representatives in the European Parliament, who tend to be silent on these matters, and their sister parties to support that reform effort.

Owen Paterson: This is all words. Back in January, the European Court of Auditors made a devastating criticism of the delivery of EU aid. With her usual admirable candour, the Secretary of State endorsed that criticism, yet the Government did not ensure that the issue was discussed at Nice, and they have meekly allowed the next review to be delayed until 2006. Why?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, but Parliaments deal in words. The question is whether the words are implemented. The record of his party in power was to take no action whatever to challenge or reform EU effort, and to increase massively the proportion of British development assistance that went through the EU. We are now starting to put things right. I should be grateful for his support.

Tony Worthington: May I take up one point that my right hon. Friend mentioned? She said that we need allies in the matter. What can we do to increase the support that Parliament gives her in the attempt to improve EU aid? What does the European Parliament intend to do? Does she have any proposals for enlisting the assistance of other Parliaments in Europe to tackle this important issue?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Because the money is committed until 2006, either we get it better spent or it will go on being badly spent. We do not have a chance to review the amount until then, so we must improve performance. The European Parliament tends to think that anything that comes through Europe is additional. That is simply wrong. It is the same money, spent by member states or by the EU. The Parliament is therefore very uncritical, as my hon. Friend knows.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is going to Brussels next week. We need to drum up a body of support in the European Parliament that understands the issues and will push for reform, and we need to build up that support in national Parliaments. I know that the Select Committee on International Development, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) was a member, tried to do that. We must drive the issue forward in this Parliament to get agreement on the reform agenda across Europe.

John Wilkinson: Why cannot all our aid be delivered to those who need it most, instead of going in part to the EU and being siphoned off in the process?

Clare Short: The proportion of British aid going through the EU under the previous Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported leapt from 10 to 30 per cent. That is the situation that we inherited. We cannot change the proportion till 2006, but we must try to improve spending before that, and examine whether it is effective. If not, we must reduce the proportion thereafter.

UN Aid Target

Kevin Brennan: What progress she plans to make towards meeting the UN target of national GDP devoted to international aid over the next five years; and if she will make a statement.

Clare Short: We are committed to working towards the UN target for official development assistance of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product. At current prices, that would be about £7 billion. The UK ODA:GNP ratio will rise from the 0.26 per cent. of GNP that I inherited to 0.33 per cent. by 2003–04, which represents a 45 per cent. increase since 1997. Our manifesto committed the Government to further substantial increases during this Parliament. I should be grateful for the support of the entire House in ensuring that they are, indeed, substantial.

Kevin Brennan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that assisting the world's 1.2 billion poorest people is perhaps the highest goal that the Government of any civilised country could have? Is she aware that between 1979 and 1997, the percentage of gross national product devoted to aid under the Conservatives fell from 0.51 to 0.26 per cent., but that under Labour in the 1970s, it went from 0.36 to 0.51 per cent.? Will she endeavour to match that record of a previous Labour Administration in this Parliament?

Clare Short: I should be delighted to achieve that objective, but it is quite an increase. I shall need the help of all hon. Members if we are to achieve it. I agree with my hon. Friend's fundamental point: one in five of the world's population are living in abject poverty. That is a moral disgrace, given the world's wealth, technology and knowledge. It is also a danger to the future stability, sustainability and safety of the world. We must give greater priority to making progress, or we will hand on a catastrophic set of crises to the next generation.

Crispin Blunt: The Secretary of State will be aware that there is another, higher UN target of a 1 per cent. transfer of public and private resources from the developed world to the developing world. That was achieved by only two countries under the previous Conservative Government—the United Kingdom and Holland. What progress has been made since 1997 in meeting that target?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the investment required for the improved infrastructure needed by developing countries will come largely from the private sector, and that will bring with it modern technology—telecommunications, information and communications technology, better transport and sanitation, and better water and electricity supplies. That is not something that can be delivered by the public sector in an OECD country increasing flows of investment to developing countries.
	We must help developing countries to act against corruption and to put in place the law enforcement, better governance and greater stability that helps to attract investment to their countries. Investment has gone up and down, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to claim that even his Government, whatever he might want to say about them, directed private sector investment from the UK to developing countries. The world does not work like that.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Michael Fabricant: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 July.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Michael Fabricant: Will the Prime Minister praise the work of the special constabulary? He will he aware that there are 7,500 fewer special constables than there were four years ago. In Lichfield, which is typical of many cities, we have only two or three regular police officers on duty on Friday and Saturday nights. What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to restore the balance and recruit more special constables? I am referring not to the regular police but to the special constabulary.

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right: we do need to recruit more special constables. As he knows, changes to the health and safety regulations impacted on the number of special constables, but we are taking measures to increase their number. The hon. Gentleman is also right to suggest that those increases run alongside the increase in numbers of the regular police. We need both to police the country properly.

Ann Clwyd: As we are likely to be giving Railtrack between £20 billion and £25 billion of taxpayers' money during the next 10 years, can we not use it as a lever to block the fat-cat pay-offs to some of the former directors of Railtrack who have so clearly failed the public?

Tony Blair: We do not have power to do that, but we do have power to make sure that the money that we are putting into the railways—a huge £60 billion investment during the next 10 years—is used to provide not just the track, which is in desperate need of renovation, but the trains and capacity that the transport infrastructure of the fourth largest economy in the world demands.

William Hague: The House will regret the resignation as First Minister of Northern Ireland of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has shown the utmost courage, integrity and statesmanship. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should be in no doubt about what has forced the right hon. Gentleman to take that action? It is the IRA's refusal to keep the promise that it made more than a year ago to put its arms beyond use, despite all the gains that they have pocketed, including the release of prisoners. On a day when another fatal shooting has tragically taken place in Northern Ireland, will the Prime Minister assure the House that no more ground will be given, such as more policing reforms or the scaling down of security, in advance of the decommissioning of weapons, which remains a fundamental obligation under the agreement?

Tony Blair: First, I join in the condemnation of the killing of the Catholic man by paramilitaries. It is a tragic and terrible event which is a mark of precisely the past in Northern Ireland that we want to leave behind.
	Secondly, I agree totally with what the right hon. Gentleman said in respect of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). As leader of the Ulster Unionists, he has shown enormous courage in the past few years in trying to push the peace process on. There is no doubt that decommissioning is an obligation under the Good Friday agreement. It is an obstacle to progress now, and that is why it is so important that we have rapid progress on it.

William Hague: We wish the Government every success in dealing with this problem, but does the Prime Minister agree that it would be wholly wrong to reward republicans for their intransigence and to punish democrats such as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann and others, who have done everything required of them? On Monday, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that a range of sanctions was open to the Government. Can the Prime Minister tell us what any of those sanctions are? In his published letter to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, on 10 April 1998, he said that if the existing provisions on excluding people from office turned out to be ineffective, he would support changes to them. Will that now include enabling the Government to exclude Sinn Fein Ministers from the Executive if there is still no movement on arms?

Tony Blair: We have a range of powers available to us, one of which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. Obviously, we keep the use of all those powers under review. We are about to go into a process of protracted—I hope not too protracted—negotiation about how we resolve the current impasse. I do not think that it is sensible for me to say what we will or will not do in circumstances that may arise if that negotiation fails, but I do say this: the outstanding issues are absolutely clear. Obviously, we need to ensure that we have a police service that attracts support from all parts of the community, that the institutions have stability, and that, as we can do so, and in accordance with the proper demands of security, we bring about a more normalised situation in Northern Ireland. There has already been huge change in that regard in the past few years, but it is also important that those who sit in government and want to be part of the democratic process are committed to exclusively democratic means. There has always been a point, right from the beginning of the process, when people had to choose between the democratic process and having alongside it a paramilitary organisation that is still capable of exerting force and pressure of an unacceptable kind.
	I think that that moment of choice is here and now. We have to ensure in the negotiations in the next couple of weeks that we find an arrangement that allows us to resolve those outstanding issues and to do what I still believe the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want: to see the agreement for the peace process implemented. Even people who may have hesitated in the last election or even voted for parties that were opposed to the agreement did so not because they disagreed with the principles underlying the Good Friday agreement, but because they wanted to see it implemented. Now it has got to be implemented in all its stages and forms.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Prime Minister recall that, in 1997, a Bill was brought to the House to cut benefits for lone parents? It was not the brightest thing my right hon. Friend did, and towards the end of that year he admitted that it was almost certainly a mistake. The press is filled today with stories of cuts in disability benefits. Can I have an assurance that we are not going to travel down the road we travelled down in 1997, because it is bound to be strewn with difficulties? If my right hon. Friend wants a Bill off the shelf to do some good for the Labour movement, he should get stuck into those fat cats like Gerald Corbett and the rest, but leave the sick and disabled alone.

Tony Blair: Well, the road may be strewn with difficulties, but I must say to my hon. Friend that the proposals made today on incapacity benefit by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions are entirely sensible and justified. It cannot be right that people coming on to incapacity benefit will be paid on average about £4,000 a year for, say, 10, 15 or 20 years, with no one ever checking whether they have recovered from their injuries and are able to work. It is therefore important that we apply a proper test and ensure that the vast amount involved—£7 billion a year—is spent properly, and that we will do.

Charles Kennedy: Does the Prime Minister agree with the conclusion of London Transport Commissioner Bob Kiley that the Government's proposed public-private partnership for the future of the London underground should now be terminated and that control of the London tube should instead pass to Transport for London?

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree with that view. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was a meeting yesterday between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Mr. Kiley. We will make our position clear on Mr. Kiley's representations to us in due course. Given the vast amount of extra investment that we are putting into the tube—we are prepared to guarantee it over a period which has never before been guaranteed for investment in the tube, in terms of amount as well as the fixed term for which we are putting the money in—it is essential that we get value for money and that we ensure in the building work that is done that there is risk transferred to the private sector. Otherwise, we will repeat the mistakes of the Jubilee line and end up with a huge cost overrun, and the building work will not take place on time. Again, it may be difficult, but it will be done.

Charles Kennedy: The Prime Minister says that, but in the past 48 hours the talks, according to the commissioner, have been getting nowhere, and commuters and travellers have suffered well-publicised distress on the London underground. After four years of a Labour Government, is that not a pathetic verdict on the right hon. Gentleman's ability to deliver an effective, safe and affordable quality transport system for the capital?

Tony Blair: Of course the tube is not of the standard that London deserves. For precisely that reason, we are committed to some £13 billion worth of investment in the next few years. It is essential that the money is spent wisely and that we get the best value for money. We need a modern tube that is publicly run but privately built. The Jubilee line is the classic example of the old way of doing things: a cost overrun of more than £1 billion and the work being done two or even three years late. It is therefore essential to get value for money.
	Record investment is being made, but, as ever, I must tell the Liberal Democrats that it is not simply a matter of money; we must ensure value for money. We offer record investment to people in London, but the money must be properly spent.

Roger Casale: The Prime Minister is aware of the urgent need to equip our armed forces with a modern, reliable and secure communications system, which is fully integrated across our armed forces and inter-operative with NATO systems. I am sure that, in the next two weeks, he will give full and proper consideration to several competing bids from around the world to provide such a system, including one from Thales, which employs 200 people in my constituency. Does he agree that considerable benefits would accrue to the manufacturing base and the skills base in this country, and that our exports in the high technology sector would receive a great boost, if such a system could be built and delivered in the United Kingdom?

Tony Blair: If it could be built and delivered in the UK, of course it would benefit our manufacturing industry and protect jobs. However, we have to go through a specific negotiating and bidding process. I understand that the decision will be made in a few weeks.

Norman Baker: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House in the previous Parliament that incineration was an essential part of a waste strategy? Is he not aware that other countries recycle more than 50 per cent. of their waste, compared with the pathetic 8 per cent. that we manage in this country? Will the right hon. Gentleman rule out incineration and thereby remove the toxic cloud that hangs over Newhaven in my constituency? Will he also undertake not to fiddle the public inquiry system to drive through incineration?

Tony Blair: It is true that we need to increase the amount of recycling, and we are doing that. However, pulling out of all incineration, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would cost a great deal of money. That can be done over time, but we face many demands. Indeed, almost every question that I am asked is a demand for money. We have to balance those competing claims. We shall make progress as we can, but if we peremptorily pulled out of incineration altogether, we would have a financial shortfall that we could not cover, and there would be nothing that we could do with the resulting waste.

Chris Mullin: On President Bush's madcap scheme for missile defence, may I gently suggest to the Prime Minister that, rather than our trying to act as an honest broker between the United States and the European Union, British interests would be better served by telling the Americans the truth, which is that it will not work, that there are no takers and that the real threats to our security are climate change, the AIDS pandemic and impoverishment caused by the grossly unfair workings of the global market?

Tony Blair: I agree—[Hon. Members: "Ah."] Perhaps I can begin by stating the points on which I agree with my hon. Friend. I agree with him about Kyoto, the AIDS pandemic and the impoverishment of a large part of the world's population. That is precisely why, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development explained earlier, we are doing so much to combat AIDS in the developing world. We are also pushing forward the Kyoto protocol and we have considerably increased the amount of aid that we give the developing nations.
	I am afraid that I do not agree that the Americans are wrong to identify weapons of mass destruction as a genuine threat. They are a genuine threat. [Interruption.] We need to be prepared to look at all systems that are necessary—[Interruption.] Obviously I am delighted to have the support of the Opposition. We must consider all offensive and defensive systems. I also do not agree that it is wrong for us to act as an honest broker between the United States and our European partners. It is an article of faith for me—I believe this deeply—that when the US and the EU cannot resolve their differences properly, the world is a less stable and less prosperous place. It is important that we keep an open mind. We have not yet received a proposal from the United States. When we do, we shall declare our position on it. In the meantime, we shall do everything that we can to bring the US and the EU closer together.

William Hague: May I warmly commend the Prime Minister on that reply? Any remaining puzzle as to why the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is no longer in the Government has been resolved.
	Whose fault is it that the Government's policy on involving the private sector in the national health service is so entirely unclear?

Tony Blair: I do not accept that it is. The private finance initiative in the national health service, for example, and with our schools, is delivering huge benefits. That co-operation with the private sector is an important part of rebuilding our schools and hospitals.

William Hague: The Prime Minister is one of the few people who thinks that that is clear. The head of the British Medical Association has said:
	"The Government's thinking is opaque and unclear."
	The general secretary of the Trades Union Congress has said:
	"There is confusion and lack of clarity from the Government."
	The chairman of the parliamentary Labour party has said:
	"There needs to be more done to clarify the boundaries."
	The general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union has referred to
	"a cocktail of policy confusion."
	The former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), said that
	"there hasn't been any clarity about what's envisaged."
	Is not the confusion coming from the top of the Government? Despite all the statements to the contrary, will primary care groups be able to commission clinical services directly from the private sector?

Tony Blair: As we have said throughout, there is no intention to privatise clinical services—neither have we ever said that primary care trusts will privatise clinical services. It is important to enable primary care trusts and others, where appropriate, to work with the private sector. For example, 3,000 general practitioner premises are being renovated throughout the country, bringing in more than £1 billion worth of investment with the private sector. The right hon. Gentleman may be opposed to that—indeed, there may be many who are opposed to it—but I think that it is a thoroughly good thing.

William Hague: Well, now we know why everybody apart from the Prime Minister finds his policy completely unclear. We have just had a typical example. The question to which he failed to give a simple yes asked him to support a statement straight out of his concordat with the private sector, which was signed by the Government last October. I shall ask the question again, and I shall read from the document. It refers to primary care groups or primary care trusts commissioning directly from a private or voluntary health care provider. Is that still the position?

Tony Blair: Of course, and they do it every day. For example, when we have severe winter pressures, they should be entitled to use private sector or voluntary sector providers. There is a difference between privatising a public service, which is the policy of the Conservative party, and providing a better public service in co-operation with the private sector, which is the Government's policy.
	The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is that in circumstances where there is a shortage of capacity in the public sector and we can use the private sector to get an operation done within the NHS, free at the point of use, yes, the providers should be able to use it.

William Hague: Well, I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that saying no to one question and yes to the same question a moment later does not constitute a clear policy on behalf of the Government. Is it not time that he stopped facing both ways on this policy? He wants services to be managed by the private sector, but not run by private companies. He signs up to primary care groups buying from private providers, but the Secretary of State for Health says that private companies should not provide any clinical services. The right hon. Gentleman makes bold statements about radicalism, but feeds trade union leaders on a diet of reassurance and asparagus tips. Is it not time for him to admit that his plans to involve the private sector while not allowing it to do anything will turn out yet again to be words without substance and spin without delivery?

Tony Blair: No, because when we can work with the private sector to provide a better public service, we will. I have given one example: the private finance initiative. When we came into office, it had completely stalled under the previous Government. It is now delivering the biggest-ever hospital building programme and being extended to the new GP premises. If the new surgical units, for example, can be better managed by the private sector—even though the staff are employed by the national health service—to give better value and service to the patient, let it happen. When we can commission private sector care—for example, under winter pressures or in other circumstances—within the national health service, free at the point of use, we do so.
	When we can build better schools using the private sector, we will do so. When we need to obtain private sponsorship for schools, we will do so. In every case, however, it will be about ensuring that we deliver a better public service. Let me say to all hon. Members that we were elected on a mandate of investment and reform. We are putting record amounts of money in, but the change needs to happen, too. It is change for a purpose: to put the patient first, to put the pupil first, and to make sure that we deliver better public services, which the Conservative party failed to do.

Bob Blizzard: Pensioners in my constituency are very pleased that they no longer have to pay £6 a year for their concessionary half-fare bus pass. However, the pass is primarily valid only in the area covered by the local authority—in my case, Suffolk. Pensioners are, therefore, asking for a concessionary scheme for longer-distance travel. What plans does my right hon. Friend have further to extend concessionary travel for pensioners?

Tony Blair: We are going to extend it so that it will also be available for long coach journeys. This is all part of trying to provide pensioners with a better deal: the winter fuel allowance, the higher than normal basic state pension rise, the free TV licences for the over-75s, and now concessionary fares for pensioners. It is all part of making sure that they get the security and the dignity that they need in old age.

Steve Webb: Is the Prime Minister aware that the crisis in social services funding is now so severe that Bristol city council has been forced to adopt a policy of not moving an elderly person from hospital into residential care until two elderly people in residential care have died first? Does he accept that it is not in the interests of elderly people to be kept in hospital when they are ready for discharge? Does he also accept that the bed blocking that results is not in the interests of the NHS? What is he going to do about it?

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that bed blocking is probably the most urgent problem that we face in the national health service. We need to do two things. First, we need to provide substantial additional funding, which we are doing. There will be some £900 million additional funding for social services. Secondly, we need a far better system of co-operative working between social services and local hospitals. Although it is absolutely true that we have severe bed blocking problems in Bristol and in other places, there are parts of the country in which these problems have been resolved. So, once again, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that we need the money going in, but we also need the change. I agree that this is an urgent problem, and we are seeing what other measures we can take to deal with it.

Kali Mountford: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the Huddersfield Daily Examiner? On the front page, he will learn what can happen when GPs embrace change. The primary care group in south Huddersfield has embraced real change and, as a result of co-operation, has been able to give a £1.5 million cash boost to the local hospital. By embracing the talents of its own GPs, it has been able to use those talents and to cut waiting lists. Is not that the kind of appropriate reform that we can achieve—unlike what has been said by the British Medical Association, and unlike the failed individual GP fundholding of the Conservative party?

Tony Blair: First, may I apologise for not having read the Huddersfield Daily Examiner? In retrospect, I wish I had. May I also commend the GPs in my hon. Friend's area for the changes that they have made, and say once again that the vast majority of our doctors do a wonderful job in the national health service? However, it is important that we make changes as well as ensuring that the money is going in.
	The changes are opposed by certain GPs, and I understand the reasons for that—for example, they might oppose NHS Direct or the walk-in centres, or they might oppose the requirement that we give an appointment to a patient within 48 hours. All those changes can be properly embraced, and we will work with doctors to enable them to do so, but we have to ensure that the extra money that is going in brings about a better service. The doctors in my hon. Friend's area have shown exactly how that can be done.

Tim Loughton: By way of contrast with the question asked by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), is the Prime Minister aware of the enormous pressures on GPs on the south coast, and in particular in Worthing, where surgeries have more than three times the national average of over-85s on their books and most have closed their lists? A recent survey of doctors in West Sussex showed that as many as 90 per cent. are planning to leave the profession well before the age of 60, and an alarming number are at their wits' end. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to make it easier for those experienced GPs to stay on in their profession, rather than constantly giving us those fantasy figures about new recruitment, as if doctors could be grown from packets of seeds?

Tony Blair: They are not fantasy figures on recruitment. There are about 1,000 extra GPs compared with four years ago. As opposed to the previous Government, who cut the number of training places for doctors, we have increased it. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's specific problem in a moment, but, overall in the country, GP home visits have dropped by half and night visits by a third since 1990. The number of GPs seeking early retirement is down, not up. However, it is correct that in certain parts of the country—the hon. Gentleman's may well be one—the position is very difficult indeed.
	Precisely for that reason, we are trying to work with GPs to make sure that practices are changed so that they get the money and the resources going in and so that there is better use, for example, of practice nurses and other professionals who can help with the stress that doctors have. We are willing at every stage to consider what more we can do to encourage people to stay in the profession. Indeed, we have already said that we shall offer some £10,000 to those who want to stay on.

Tim Loughton: Not enough.

Tony Blair: The hon. Gentleman says that that may not be enough, but, with the greatest respect, it is more than was ever done in 18 years of Conservative government. We still have a great deal more to do, but money is not all we need. We also need to change the way that GP services work in the hon. Gentleman's area and in others. To those who were critical at the BMA, I say that we are prepared to work with them in a partnership for change, but it is important that we have genuine change in the NHS.

David Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is bound to be concern if the severely disabled are forced to undergo reviews every few years? Following on from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will he bear in mind the anxiety that exists among so many of the disabled over what is in the news today? Will he give a commitment now that he is willing to meet the organisations representing the disabled before any firm proposals are put before the House, because we do want to avoid a row, don't we?

Tony Blair: I am happy to meet groups representing the disabled. However, I will not apologise for the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has proposed, because they are important. Let me repeat that we are spending some £7 billion a year on incapacity benefit. The numbers trebled between 1979 and 1997. I think every Member of the House knows that people were transferred on to incapacity benefit to disguise the true levels of unemployment in the 1980s. Therefore, it is important for new claimants that we do not leave people on benefit for 10, 15 or 20 years, but that we are prepared to make sure that those who take money from the state have that money justified. If people are severely disabled and cannot work, we will give them every protection—indeed, we will increase it. However, if people can work, it is our responsibility to help them do so.

Christopher Chope: Does the Prime Minister recall that, at about this time last week, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) asked him a rather penetrating question about appointments to the peerage? Does he remember trying to put his hon. Friend down by accusing him forgetfulness? He said:
	"My hon. Friend forgets that the independent Appointments Commission has taken away prime ministerial patronage".—[Official Report, 27 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 638.]
	Will the Prime Minister apologise to his hon. Friend for accusing him of forgetfulness given that he himself seemed to forget that he had appointed his own secretary a peeress without any reference whatever to the Appointments Commission and in breach of the rules laid down by him for the conduct of that commission? Is it not about time that we had more accurate answers from the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: The independent Appointments Commission has indeed taken away prime ministerial patronage. It is for the hon. Gentleman's party and my party to appoint the people whom they want to be working peers.

Paul Clark: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the teachers and pupils at two of my local schools, Twydall infants and Parkwood infants, for their hard work and commitment, which has been recognised by the award of beacon status? Although many of the measures that we have taken have helped to raise standards, will my right hon. Friend inform the House of the steps that are being taken to deal with the serious matter of teacher shortages, which concerns head teachers in my constituency and elsewhere?

Tony Blair: First, after years of Conservative cuts, we are increasing the number of people coming into training by between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. Secondly, we are offering bursaries to teachers. Thirdly, for certain shortage subjects we are writing off student loans for trainee teachers. Finally, we are putting substantial extra investment into schools, which will yield more teachers, more classroom assistants and better buildings. That is all part of the investment-plus-reform programme that is essential for the school service. I pay tribute to the work of teachers, pupils and parents in Gillingham, which I am sure mirrors the achievement of teachers and pupils in many parts of the country.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	European Communities (Amendment) Bill

[Relevant documents: Treaty of Nice, Cm 5090; Seventeenth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 1999–2000, The 2000 IGC, HC 23-xvii, and the Government's response thereto, HC 803; Sixth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, on Developments at the Intergovernmental Conference 2000, HC 384, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 4893; Fifth Report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 2000–01, European Union Enlargement and Nice Follow-up, HC 318.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill implements the key decisions of the Nice European Council enshrined in the Nice treaty. The treaty was signed on 26 February this year, but will not enter into force until it has been ratified by all 15 member states of the European Union. When that happens, we shall have put in place the final institutional reforms that the European Union needs to be ready for enlargement. I wish to open this debate by placing the Bill in its proper historical context.
	Few have expressed that context more succinctly than President George W. Bush. Visiting Warsaw last month, he said:
	"Our goal is to erase the false lines that have divided Europe for too long".
	He echoed his father, who, when in office, talked of building a "Europe whole and free".
	Enlarging the European Union to take in the applicant countries of central and southern Europe has been a strategic aim of successive British Governments and our allies for more than a decade. We believe that co-operation in the European Union will bury the memory of cold war divisions just as surely as it has laid to rest the ghost of warfare in northern Europe and the spectre of dictatorship in southern Europe.
	That strategic vision carries with it immense practical benefits for Britain and for existing European Union members, as well as for countries that are soon to be new member states. It will make all of us more prosperous, safer and stronger. Enlargement will mean that British companies will be able to benefit from access to the largest single market for trade and investment in the world, with up to half a billion consumers—more than the United States and Japan put together. It will give us more allies to help to counter the cross-border threats that we face: organised crime, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. It will also give us a cleaner environment, because candidate countries are making major improvements in their air and water quality to meet EU standards.
	I have described my approach to the European Union as that of a practical European. It is because the Government recognise the practical and strategic benefits that they have been a champion of enlargement since taking office.
	We used our presidency of the Council in 1998 to launch negotiations with the first set of six countries. At every European Council since then at which enlargement has been an issue, we have pushed for and secured rapid progress. As a result, 12 countries are now negotiating their accession, and a 13th, Turkey, has been confirmed as a candidate.

Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the one thing that unites political parties across the spectrum in countries such as Romania is their wish to gain accession to the European Union? Those countries consider accession vital to the area to which he refers.

Jack Straw: I recognise that. Although there is not complete unanimity on enlargement in every country—nor would one expect that in democratic states—there is overwhelming support for it across central and eastern Europe. In the last two days, I have discussed enlargement with the Foreign Ministers of the Czech Republic and Croatia. While they are at different stages in their relationship with the EU, both recognise powerfully the benefits that association with it will bring, and has already brought, to their countries.

Menzies Campbell: During those discussions, did the Foreign Secretary emphasise not just the economic opportunity that the EU might provide, but the fact that membership would make it much easier for countries that have recently advanced towards democratic institutions to maintain them?

Jack Straw: Indeed. Although the EU began as a limited common market for coal and steel, it is important to recognise today the much wider social and cultural benefits of our coming together in a union of nation states. We should also recognise that our history is shared with the countries of eastern, southern and central Europe. They are European nations, as firmly and as surely as France, Germany and the United Kingdom. We have a common heritage and a common culture, as well as a shared interest in securing a single common market for trade in goods and services.
	I was talking about the work that we have put in to pursue enlargement. Most recently at the Gothenburg European Council, just three weeks ago, we argued for and secured an affirmation that the EU's commitment to enlargement was "irreversible". Our aim is to complete negotiations by the end of 2002 for candidate countries that are ready, so that they can participate as EU members in the European parliamentary elections in 2004. When I use the word "our" in that context, I am talking in a collective sense of the decisions made by the Heads of Government in the declaration that followed their meeting.
	This timetable is bold and ambitious. If we are to achieve it, we must ratify Nice.
	Some hon. Members argue that the results of the Irish referendum—which, by coincidence, occurred on the same day as the United Kingdom referendum—

John Bercow: And produced a much better result.

Jack Straw: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the result in Ireland was much better—from his point of view, that is—than the result in the United Kingdom. I am grateful to him for confirming that the Conservative party made Europe the key issue at the last general election. It was the Conservatives, not us, who said that it was a referendum on Europe—those were their exact words—and I am sorry to say, from their point of view, that their proposition was wholly rejected by the British electorate.

Simon Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the two contrasting referendums on Europe. One of the key features shared by the Irish referendum and the United Kingdom general election was low turnout. In Ireland, the turnout to decide the country's future within the Nice agreement was as low as 35 per cent. Does that not underline some of the difficulties that we face because Nice has not done enough to make the constitution of Europe clear to the average European citizen? We need further debate on how we can have a written constitution for Europe, and a clearer division of responsibilities and subsidiarity between nation states and emerging nation states in the EU.

Jack Straw: I will come to that, but I agree that we must do much more to spread comprehension among the citizens of Europe about what the EU stands for. It is not the responsibility of our citizens to make sure that they understand. It is the responsibility of the EU's member states and central institutions—especially the Commission—to ensure that the project is properly and better understood by our citizens. The EU acts in their name and for their benefit. Ultimately, the future of the EU and of each state is in their hands.

Donald Anderson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should be cautious about enthusiastically espousing the result of the Irish referendum? Only 18 per cent. of those who voted there voted against the proposition, and the opposition was led by Sinn Fein—not the most plausible anti-militaristic campaigners. Is not the real lesson for all of us that we must connect with our electorates on European matters?

Jack Straw: I agree. The alliance of forces that formed in the Republic of Ireland was interesting. The environmentalist Green party—whose views I respect, although I do not agree with them in totality—joined with Sinn Fein, one of whose objections to the Nice treaty was that it could lead to the "militarisation" of Europe. Of course, Sinn Fein members know far more about militarisation than many of the rest of us.
	I shall deal in more detail with the Irish referendum. I have not concealed from the House my disappointment at the result, but we have to respect it. The question of turnout has been raised. In free democracies where voting is not compulsory, people are as free not to vote as they are free to vote. People must make their own choices about that, but everyone—those who do vote and those who do not—must respect the decision that is arrived at.
	It would be hopeless if politicians were to say that a vote was not entirely legitimate because the turnout only reached a certain level. As far as I am aware, with the exception of Australia, where voting is compulsory, all western democracies recognise and respect the rule that people are entitled not to vote but that they must respect the decision reached by those who do vote.
	It is fundamental to the democratic legitimacy of the EU that changes to the founding treaties do not take place unless and until the constitutional procedures of all 15 member states have been satisfied. However, for all of us the clear lesson of the Irish result is that we cannot afford to take public support for the EU for granted.
	The Irish Government have made it clear that they will need to address particular issues with their electorate, just as the Danish Government did when their electorate rejected Maastricht in 1992. The other 14 member states formally resolved at the General Affairs Council three weeks ago that they were ready to help Ireland to find solutions. In the meantime, all 15 member states, including Ireland, have agreed that we should proceed with the enlargement negotiations and our own ratification procedures. Only by doing so will we be ready by the end of next year to admit new members. If, however, Ireland does not ratify, the treaty will not enter into force. The position is as simple as that.
	No member state, and least of all the Irish Government, has followed the example of some Conservatives and called for a wholesale renegotiation of the Nice treaty.

Teddy Taylor: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Nice treaty transfers a further 39 areas of decision making to the majority vote process, and that 90 per cent. of EU decisions are now made by majority vote? Might not the fact that direct democracy is becoming increasingly irrelevant explain why poll turnouts are declining? Should we not warn the people of eastern Europe that the EU path does not lead to democracy, but away from it?

Jack Straw: I accept, of course, that the treaty proposes an extension of qualified majority voting, but I do not accept, with respect, the hon. Gentleman's political arithmetic. There is a big difference between putting a unit of one on maintaining the veto on tax, which we still do, and putting an equal unit of one on accepting qualified majority voting, in place of a veto, on the registrar of the Court of First Instance. The two are not cognate.
	If the hon. Gentleman reads the treaty, he will see that a range of bureaucratic issues on which it was ridiculous for the veto to be applied have been transferred to QMV. The other areas that have been moved to QMV concern trade, on which it is in our interests that other people should not exercise a veto. My experience in the Justice and Home Affairs Council, which does everything by unanimity, has been interesting. On some issues, we could, and have, maintained a veto, but a veto blocks change.
	We are in the vanguard of change to reform the European Union. The Opposition's reasoned amendment states that they want reform, but they set out no method or process by which they can deliver it. On a range of issues, we need to ensure that we can override the slowest: those with the deepest vested interest in the existing structures, which everyone agrees do not work entirely satisfactorily.
	The achievement of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, my predecessor as Foreign Secretary, was to ensure that if subjects went to the heart of our status as a nation state—tax, defence, social security and other matters, including the signature of treaties such as the one before us—they should continue to be subject to unanimity. However, in other areas, where we have an interest in progress and reform, the QMV system was sensible.

Francis Maude: The Foreign Secretary said that it was agreed by the General Affairs Council that each country should proceed with its ratification proceedings, notwithstanding the Irish referendum vote. Does he recall that in 1992 the shadow Cabinet, of which he was a member, urged strongly, in the similar circumstances of the rejection of the Maastricht treaty by the Danes, that the ratification Bill for that treaty should be postponed? The then Opposition leader urged the then Prime Minister that the Bill should be postponed until the matter was fully resolved. John Major accepted that urging and the Bill was indeed postponed. Why was postponement right then, but not now?

Jack Straw: The answer is that life is a learning process, at least for this side of the House. I kept saying in the previous Parliament that Opposition Members should learn from our experience in opposition. I even offered them free seminars throughout the four years that I was Home Secretary, and I would have provided them, because I found it tragic that there were some Opposition Members of considerable talent who could have helped to improve Government by improving themselves as an Opposition, but did nothing about it.
	The situation in 1992 was new, but the right hon. Gentleman quotes at me the position of the shadow Cabinet. I could quote back at him the position of the then Cabinet, which took the opposite point of view. The Opposition are now calling for all sorts of responses to the Irish referendum. He was a Minister in 1992. He actually signed the Maastricht treaty and then lost his seat.

John Bercow: There was no causal link.

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman still lost. The General Affairs Council, which included his successor as Minister after the 1992 general election, agreed unanimously that the other 14 member states should proceed with the ratification of Maastricht. After discussion with Denmark, including some accommodation by the EU, and a further referendum, the Danes agreed to continue with the treaty.

Francis Maude: The Foreign Secretary inadvertently misrepresents what the then Government did. They listened to the very proper concerns expressed by the shadow Cabinet and others that the Bill should be postponed, and it was. The House did not return to it until the matter was resolved by the Danish public. There was a consensus in the House that it was wrong to proceed with the treaty's ratification while its final form was unresolved because of the Danish referendum decision.

Jack Straw: My recollection of the mood around Maastricht in 1992 is that it was anything but consensual. One difference is that there was a Council decision before the Bill was introduced. The sequence of events was that the Council met on 11 June, the Monday after the election. We made a decision, in the light of that meeting, to introduce the Bill subsequently, and the timetable was different.
	The other difference, if the right hon. Gentleman wants to argue the case, is that Maastricht, on any analysis, involved more significant and fundamental changes to the treaties and the basic constitution of the European Union than does this Bill.

John Bercow: rose—

Julian Lewis: rose—

Jack Straw: I have given way a great deal and I should like to make some progress. If there is time, I shall take some more interventions.
	I spoke earlier of meeting the Foreign Ministers for Croatia and for the Czech Republic over the past two days. The Foreign Minister for the Czech Republic is Jan Kavan, a man whose own life symbolises the huge change that has occurred in Europe in my adult lifetime. I first met Jan Kavan 33 years ago, in the Endsleigh street headquarters of the British National Union of Students. I was then the deputy president of the NUS, an organisation whose own politics had, to some extent, been dominated by the cold war.
	Jan was a student leader too, from what was then Czechoslovakia, but he had none of our freedoms. Instead, he was a victim, along with thousands and thousands of others, of the cold war—of the undemocratic authoritarian regimes imposed on one central European country after another. He effectively went into exile in London to muster support after Dubcek's reforms in the Prague spring had been brutally crushed by the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.
	Today the Czech Republic is one of the most successful of central Europe's new democracies. Jan told me today of the huge efforts that his country and the other applicants have put into preparing to join the European Union. They see accession as putting the seal on their admission to the family of European democracies. Jan told me how important it was for the Czech Republic and for every other applicant that Nice be ratified on schedule.
	If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in enlargement which apparently he is, according to the Opposition's reasoned amendment, he owes it to the applicant countries as much as we do to proceed with ratification. There is no basis for us holding up ratification because of the Irish referendum.
	Over the coming years, we expect to complete negotiations with up to 12 applicant countries. I invite the House to imagine for a moment what a European Union of 27 member states would look like if we did not make the changes agreed at Nice. The Opposition's so-called reasoned amendment—and if ever there were an oxymoron, that is it—

John Bercow: You spent 18 years doing them.

Jack Straw: Ours were very much better—they included reasons. They were not contrary to reason.
	The Conservatives' reasoned amendment says that the Bill fails to modernise institutions of the European Union. Yet that is exactly what the Nice treaty does. The Opposition have no policies that I have been able to discern that could conceivably command the support even of two or three other member states, still less of 14, on securing the modernisation inherent in the Nice treaty.
	Without the Nice treaty and the changes that it makes, as each small new country joined the European Union, so relatively would the weight and influence of the larger countries diminish. Eventually, countries that together could not muster a majority of the European Union's population could, however, form a majority for the purposes of passing EU legislation. That would plainly be unacceptable.
	As the Community grew, so, too, would the European Commission, until it resembled a mass meeting rather than the coherent, delivery-focused body that we want it to be. With 27 vested interests capable of imposing 27 vetoes on much new legislation, many areas of collective decision making that are vital to our interests would slowly grind to a halt. Therefore, at last year's intergovernmental conference, we set out with the explicit purpose of solving those problems. At Nice, we achieved a deal that did just that. Nice is necessary for enlargement.
	The deal secured by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was not only good for Europe but excellent for Britain. I normally refrain from quoting from leaked documents, but the European Commission's internal assessment of Nice is now a matter of public record. It said:
	"It was a European Council of strong emotion, with winners (this time the UK and Spain) and losers (Belgium, Portugal, Germany and the Commission)".
	There is no question but that the nation state of the United Kingdom achieved what it set out to achieve at Nice.

William Cash: rose-

Julian Lewis: rose—

John Bercow: rose—

Jack Straw: I give way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).

John Bercow: The Foreign Secretary is certainly making the best fist of a poor case, although his heart does not seem to be in it. As long ago as 18 June 1997, the Prime Minister trumpeted in this House the alleged merits of the protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam. However, since then no fewer than 4,995 European Union directives, regulations and decisions have impacted on this country. Can the right hon. Gentleman identify one practical example of a benefit to this country arising from the passage of that protocol?

Jack Straw: Yes, I can. There are plenty of issues on which the Commission and the Council hold back, leaving matters to member states. We are Europeans and a huge amount of our trade depends on our membership of the European Union. [Interruption.] I am being asked to prove negatives, but there are a huge number of examples, when, by definition, if the Commission has not produced a directive, the matter has been left to individual member states. That has happened in a huge number of areas. Of course, such issues do not appear on the agendas of the Council or the Commission because they have not been brought forward as European legislation. Instead, they have been left to individual member states.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham asked whether the directives have benefited this country. One set of regulations and directives that has benefited this country is that on the single market. We have tried to extend the single market into sectors—particularly all kinds of services—that are still the subject of unjustified competition. That cannot be achieved by individual legislation by the individual nation states. It requires that there should be legislation for 15 nations to ensure that practices that we regard as unjustifiable and restrictive are eliminated across Europe. Who benefits from that? Our constituents, this country and our economy. They would not benefit if we returned to the environment which the hon. Gentleman imagines we could achieve in a different world that I do not recognise.
	A further important point about Nice was that, for the first time since we joined the then Common Market in 1973, we won an increase in the UK's voting weight. Our nominal voting power in the Council will rise from 10 votes to 29 votes, and although the total votes will increase as well, we shall have significantly more influence relative to smaller countries. For example, we used to have three times as many votes as Denmark, but under Nice we shall have four times as many. That also means that France, Germany and the United Kingdom together will still be able to block any proposal that they dislike. Moreover, the UK will retain voting parity with Germany, despite Germany's greater population.
	At Nice, we also succeeded in providing for a smaller and better Commission. From 2005, there will be one Commissioner per member state. Once the EU has 27 members, the number of Commissioners will be capped below that figure and there will be a system of equal rotation. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), we secured more qualified majority voting in areas where that is in Britain's interests. I have already explained why we need to extend qualified majority voting in some areas while insisting on the veto in others.
	In Nice, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and my predecessor secured for Britain all the goals that we had set out in our White Paper in February last year. That was an outstanding result, which was deservedly praised in the national press and media and in most parts of the House.

William Cash: rose—

Jack Straw: I give way for the last time.

William Cash: Will the Foreign Secretary note that, contrary to what he said, Britain's share of the vote has declined substantially, from 11.5 to 8.4 per cent.? Will he, if he is interested, be good enough to reply to the points in a pamphlet that I have produced today, entitled "Constructive Opposition to the Nice Treaty—the Dangers of European Integration"?

Jack Straw: Of course, I will do my best to read the document, if the hon. Gentleman sends it to me. I am not sure what time scale he was using for his arithmetic. If he was going back to 1973, when the total number of member states was nine, all I can say is that of course we would have had a larger proportion of any qualified majority voting that happened then or shortly afterwards. There are now 15 member states; in future there will be 25, and eventually, if Turkey joins, there will be 28.
	My point, which is incontrovertible, is that Nice gives us a relative increase in our voting strength. [Interruption.] That is a fact. During the Committee proceedings we can, and no doubt will, talk at great length about that aspect of the arithmetic. I have already given the House the comparison that we now have three times as many votes as Denmark, and under the Nice treaty, we shall have four times as many. It is important that the countries with the largest proportion of the population should be able to exercise, roughly speaking, a proportionate vote.

Gerald Howarth: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, I need to make progress because many hon. Members, including no doubt the hon. Gentleman, want to speak.
	Having set out what the Nice treaty does for the UK and for Europe, I should now like to set out what it does not do. Despite the warnings of some anti-European commentators, the treaty does not mean the end of the British justice system, a ban on political parties or an end to freedom of thought or religion. Nice is not a recipe for federalism, if by that is meant the creation of a centralised entity. It reinforces the role of national Governments and nation states because it ensures that we can go on making decisions in the Council of Ministers and at European Councils even in a greatly enlarged EU.
	Nice does not represent a fundamental alteration in our relationship with the EU or a radical restructuring of the EU. Rather, it preserves and enhances the UK's ability to influence decisions and take initiatives for the benefit of our citizens. For that reason, it would be absurd to break with our tradition that Parliament should decide whether and how to amend treaties, and whether to hold a referendum on Nice—the more so since the Conservative Government did not hold a referendum on Maastricht, which involved much more wide-ranging changes.

David Heath: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I will not.
	To revert to the point that I was making about the Irish referendum, we have to find more effective ways of connecting the institutions of the EU to its people. Many activities and services are best carried out at the European rather than the national level, but unless and until the EU institutions become as responsive and accountable to our citizens as their national Governments are, it will always be hard to convince public opinion of that fact.
	We need to deal with that democratic deficit. We therefore agreed at Nice that there will be another intergovernmental conference in 2004. It will be different from its predecessors because it will be preceded by a wider and deeper public debate about the purpose and scope of European Union activity.
	We need to ask certain questions. Implicit in a question posed by the hon. Member for Buckingham is the important issue of subsidiarity, which has been difficult for the United Kingdom, with a political culture rather different from that of some European countries, to appreciate and accommodate. We have to ask what exactly is the European Union for. What precise purpose does it serve? To get the answer, we need to look at what the EU actually does, and analyse rigorously and frankly the tasks it does well, those it does less well and those that it does badly. Once we have a clear sense of our citizens and constituents' priorities, only then can we sensibly ensure that the EU's institutions are properly organised and equipped to deliver them. The European Union is for Europe's citizenry, not its political elites.
	That means focusing discussion not on the process, but on the results of EU co-operation. Only ideologues and specialists are impassioned by esoteric technical issues like the extent of qualified majority voting or the limits of co-decision. People care most about the practical benefits and the added value that they may be able to derive from the EU: more jobs, cleaner streets and less crime. That is where the debate should begin.
	The next IGC is an opportunity for us to decide what the EU does best and which decisions are better taken at a national level. It is a chance to simplify the treaties so that they are easier to understand, and to give national Parliaments a more defined role in the EU. We are determined to improve the democratic legitimacy and transparency of the EU.
	The first and best way to bring the EU closer to the people is to make sure that they are informed about developments. More than any previous IGC, the Nice negotiations were carried out in full view of the British public and this House. A year before Nice, our White Paper set out the issues at length and outlined our negotiating objectives in detail before the negotiations even got under way. The key documents, including successive redrafts of the draft treaty, were available on the internet at every stage. Members of the Government gave many speeches and took part in debates up and down the country to get the message across and listen to people's views, both before and after Nice. The issues were raised in several debates in Parliament over the past year and a half. Of course, Parliament, as always, will decide whether the UK will ratify the treaty by enacting the Bill and making it law.

Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: No, I will not, because I am coming to the end of my observations.
	Conservative Members, too, have played their part. Their wish to deny Europe the benefits of Nice—and hence enlargement—was the main plank of their election manifesto. It was they, not the Government, who said that they wanted the general election to be a referendum on Europe—[Interruption.] I said a moment ago, to approbation from the Opposition, that we should not quibble with the results of democratic votes. The only thing that I heard from the Conservative party throughout the campaign was that the election was a referendum on Europe. As I drew to the attention of the House during debate on the Loyal Address, that has now become non-history, as the whole Conservative manifesto has been wiped off the internet—[Hon. Members: "It has not."] It is true; I tried it myself. If one calls up Conservatives.com and types "manifesto" into the site's own search engine, one gets a blank.
	The Opposition must understand what happened at the election; they decided to campaign on Europe—and, by implication, matters like Nice—and they failed. It is not just me saying that; in The Times today, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), the shadow Foreign Secretary's predecessor, made a proclamation. The headline states:
	"I will not make the same mistake—Ken Clarke will get my vote this time."
	In the article, he said:
	"Our position on the Nice treaty became unsustainable."
	There we have it; the former shadow Foreign Secretary simply could not stand the contradictions and twists and turns inherent in the Opposition's position.
	Passing this Bill is of very great importance. It will give a clear signal to Jan Kavan, Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, all applicant nations of eastern and central Europe and to Cyprus and Malta that Britain is committed to righting the wrongs of history and to reuniting Europe. It will strengthen Britain's influence at the heart of this Europe of nation states. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the mover of the amendment, I wish to inform the House that Back-Bench speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.

Francis Maude: I beg to move, to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'this House declines to give a Second Reading to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill because it fails to modernise the institutions and policies of the European Union to meet the requirements of a diverse, enlarged Union; takes no account of acknowledgements from Her Majesty's Government and the President of the Commission that ratification of the Treaty of Nice is not a legal or technical prerequisite of enlargement; works against speedy and successful enlargement by providing for further integration; fails to address reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the single most important obstacle to such enlargement; ignores the wishes of those European Union citizens whose views have been sought in a referendum and fails to offer a similar opportunity to citizens of the United Kingdom; and diverts attention away from the pressing need for Her Majesty's Government to work with other member states and accession countries for the creation of a modern, flexible, reformed European Union.'
	The treaty of Nice was a great opportunity for the European Union. It was an opportunity to put and make the case for the modern, reformed, outward-looking EU that its citizens plainly want and which enlargement will require. It could have been the moment to bid farewell to the old dogma of "one size fits all" political integration. It could have been the time to embrace the need for a decentralised and flexible EU. It could have set deadlines for enlargement, which we, as the Foreign Secretary has been good enough to accept, wholeheartedly support. Sadly, none of that transpired. The Nice treaty, I am afraid, was the triumph of old-think; it was locked in the past.
	Eleven and a half years after the fall of the Berlin wall, it is shameful that, with the solitary exception of the German Democratic Republic—East Germany—no central or eastern European country has been admitted to the Union. I remember attending meetings with Foreign Ministers from the region in 1990, at which they were told that enlargement was five years away. Here we are in 2001 and most of them are still five years away. Why has enlargement not been achieved?

Nick Palmer: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile those remarks with his opposition to a treaty that would allow access? Does he believe that that opposition would gain the support of a single one of the Governments of the applicant countries?

Francis Maude: I reject the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question—that the treaty is essential to enlargement. He need not rely on my word; the Foreign Secretary himself said at the Dispatch Box during debate on the Loyal Address that he accepted that the Nice treaty is not technically necessary for enlargement.

Jack Straw: rose—

Francis Maude: The point that I suspect the Foreign Secretary wishes to make is that a number of Governments have said that they will not permit enlargement unless the process of deeper integration goes ahead in the meantime. They have of course said that, but it is simply a statement of political preference. The treaty is, in no sense that anyone would recognise, a necessity for enlargement. There is no such legal necessity.

Jack Straw: This is extremely tedious for most of our citizens and constituents. We can call for the record if the right hon. Gentleman wants, but the simple fact is that, in debate on the Loyal Address, I was asked whether the treaty was technically required for accession. The answer is that technically and in legal theory we do not need this treaty, but we do need a treaty, which would still have to come before the House.
	The second point is that, politically, it would be impossible to conceive of accession without the modernisation and reforms of the Nice treaty. The question that the right hon. Gentleman must answer is: how on earth does he think the EU would work with 15, 20, 25 or 28 member states without such changes?

Francis Maude: I shall have something to say about how the European Union would work without these changes. Other changes may be needed, but the idea that the proposed changes are the only possible changes that are needed to make it work is fantasy.
	It is correct to say that even if the treaty goes through, another treaty—an accession treaty—will be needed. No one can deny that. It is not only the Foreign Secretary who has said this. The President of the European Commission said that, legally, ratification of the Nice treaty is not necessary for enlargement. That is clearly the case. I hope that we can have an end to the nonsense that the Nice treaty is necessary.
	The previous Foreign Secretary made the same point, although he did not know it, in the aftermath of the Amsterdam treaty, when he announced proudly to the House that now that the Amsterdam treaty had been agreed, all the obstacles to enlargement were out of the way. Suddenly we find that there is another obstacle: the Nice treaty. [Interruption.] That is almost exactly what he said. We can call for the record if there is a dispute about it. He said:
	"In the aftermath of the Amsterdam treaty, the way is now clear for enlargement to happen."
	Funnily enough, it was not clear, according to the present Foreign Secretary and all his hon. Friends. Suddenly there is another obstacle.

Julian Lewis: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Did he notice that only a few minutes ago the Foreign Secretary conceded that if, in the end, the Irish do not ratify the Nice treaty, that treaty will be dead? Would my right hon. Friend be as interested as I would be to hear what the Foreign Secretary would propose with regard to enlargement if the Nice treaty were not ratified? Presumably, he would propose precisely the alternative treaty to which my right hon. Friend is rightly referring.

Francis Maude: The case that my hon. Friend puts in such a measured way is exactly the case that the shadow Cabinet and the then Leader of the Opposition put in 1992, after the Danish referendum result. They argued for postponement of discussion of the Bill, in order that the difficulty with the Maastricht treaty could be properly resolved, so that the House could know what treaty it was being asked to ratify.
	For the Foreign Secretary to take refuge in a decision of the General Affairs Council, and to say, "Oh well, the Council decided that matters had to go ahead, so we had no option" is a little feeble, to say the least. As the right hon. Gentleman made clear, without ratification and without a further referendum in Ireland which gives the consent of the Irish public to this treaty or to a treaty, this treaty is dead. It cannot proceed.

Mark Hendrick: rose—

Francis Maude: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, then I must make progress.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. In the light of his earlier remarks about timetables for enlargement, does he agree that timetables for enlargement would have been folly, given that the Irish have not yet given their consent in a referendum? Furthermore, is it not true that, as in the case of Denmark, there can be as many referendums as the Irish Government want?

Francis Maude: That is a lovely idea, is it not? If one does not like the result, one just keeps on having referendums. On the same basis, I could say that I did not like the result of the general election, so let us have another one. Let us carry on having votes until we get the result that we want. The arrogance of that approach is breathtaking.

Phyllis Starkey: rose—

Francis Maude: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I must make progress.
	There was an active debate in Ireland about the merits of the Nice treaty and the Irish people said no. Which part of that answer did the Government not understand? It is a pretty simple, straightforward answer.
	On the point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), by agreeing a rigidly integrationist treaty, which the Nice treaty is, we—I mean we collectively, we the European Union—have set enlargement back, for two reasons. One is that more integration sets up more hurdles for the applicant countries to jump. The second is that, as the Irish referendum result itself confirms, proceeding further with the process of integration generates a degree of political controversy which slows the enlargement process.
	There is plenty of evidence that enthusiasm in some of the eastern and central European countries for accession to the EU is dwindling. The central European correspondent of The Times recently observed:
	"Some 68 per cent. of Poles now believe that the country should delay enlargement rather than surrender important positions."
	Given the delicacy of the political situation in a number of the countries of eastern Europe—the case that all of us make for enlargement is that it is a way of stabilising those countries and bringing them into the family of democratic free market nations—we should be concerned about that.
	The correspondent went on to say:
	"Czechs are beginning to think aloud about what would happen if enlargement failed."
	Those concerns about enlargement are genuine. They are nothing to do with the Conservative party objecting to the Nice treaty or the result of the Irish referendum. They are due to the fact that the negotiations about enlargement have been extraordinarily protracted and the big issues have simply not begun to be resolved.
	We cannot accept the Bill or the treaty in its current form and we will oppose it. We will ask the House to vote for our reasoned amendment. As I said earlier, it would be wrong to proceed with the Bill at present. The Foreign Secretary has clarified for the House that the treaty will fall unless all member states have ratified it.

Gordon Marsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Francis Maude: No, I want to make some progress.
	There seems to be some reluctance through much of the rest of the EU to give voice to concerns about the treaty. Ex-President Giscard d'Estaing said in the French Parliament's debate on the treaty that, if the French people were offered a referendum,
	"you can bet that the answer would be an Irish song."
	That is a lyrical way of putting it, but one sees the point that he makes. The French people came within an ace of defeating the Maastricht treaty in 1992. How can we be at all certain that there is popular support in Britain, France, or any other country for the treaty?
	There will be a real problem if we in the EU give the impression that we treat the views of the public on these issues with disdain. A modern Europe cannot treat the views of its citizens as an awkward impediment that has to be overcome. We should be listening to the concerns of our people, particularly those raised in the Irish referendum.
	The EU and its leaders have failed to dispel the impression that they propose to bash on regardless of public opinion, and nothing that the Foreign Secretary said today in any way draws back from that. It is sad to see that that is the case.

Angus Robertson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Francis Maude: No, I shall make progress.
	I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that nothing could be more dangerous for public support for the EU, which I agree it is important to promote and sustain, than to treat the referendum result with the kind of contempt that we are hearing from him and from others.

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Francis Maude: I shall in a moment.
	To those who dissent from that, I have to say that the Government's determination to press ahead at full speed with the Bill at this time gives the impression that the views of the Irish public are set at nought. It shows no respect at all for the concerns that have been raised there. It is in that sense that EU leaders are treating the views of the public with contempt.
	It is accepted that Giscard d'Estaing said that the French public may well not support this, and I should not be at all surprised. I suspect that the British public would not support the treaty if they were offered the opportunity in a referendum.

Nigel Beard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Francis Maude: No, I shall make some progress.
	There is a real danger here of the political leaders being genuinely alienated from the public whom we are meant to represent.

William Cash: Having taken some part in the French and Danish referendums, as well as the recent Irish referendum, may I ask my right hon. Friend why we on this side of the House are not prepared at this juncture to have a referendum on the whole European issue, given that the single currency is certainly not the only issue at stake? There was no referendum when our referendum campaign managed to get 500,000 votes in favour of a vote on Maastricht. With the involvement of defence and foreign policy, we should be considering a broader referendum to obtain the full consent of the British people.

Francis Maude: In the broad-ranging policy review upon which I feel the party is about to embark, I am confident that my hon. Friend will want to make that point. I am sure that he will be very active in that respect.

Jack Straw: What is the right hon. Gentleman's view?

Francis Maude: I take the view that the British public should have the opportunity to express their opinion on the treaty in a referendum, in the same way as the public in the Republic of Ireland.

Angus Robertson: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think it right for the people of the UK to be given a choice in a referendum on the Nice treaty, but not on the Maastricht treaty?

Francis Maude: Since the Maastricht treaty was decided upon, we have gone considerably further down the path towards full-scale political integration. There is now a growing gap between what the public and the politicians think about these matters. Unless we make a connection by allowing the public to have a direct say on this specific issue, we will be in danger of allowing a big gulf to develop, which will undermine the very democracy upon which we depend.
	In such a referendum, we would be very clear about what we favour. We will support parts of the Nice treaty that may be genuinely useful in enabling enlargement to occur. Protocol A of the treaty, to which the Foreign Secretary referred, deals with the reallocation of seats in the European Parliament and the reweighting of votes in the Council. I do not take as much pleasure as him in the fact that we can now override the wishes of smaller EU countries—a point upon which he dwelt rather gloatingly. His attitude did not seem quite in accord with the spirit of harmonious friendship in which we should be approaching the enterprise. The amendment to the size of the European Commission is also a welcome step and we support it.
	We would like the reforms to go further. We would like the Commission to revert to an institution whose nature resembles much more that of an impartial civil service. That was very much the conception of its founding fathers. We would like the balance of power to shift from the European Commission to the Council of Ministers. We would also like moves to be made to strengthen democratic accountability. Each country could place a national Minister at the head of its Brussels delegation, to be directly accountable to national Parliaments. That seems to us the right approach to filling the democratic deficit. I hope that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues will respond positively to such approaches, which are the right direction for reform of the European Union as an institution and will become more necessary as time passes.
	Institutional reform is only a fraction of the final agreement at Nice, whose focus clearly lies elsewhere. Tighter integration is the defining characteristic of the treaty, and qualified majority voting is extended in 31 articles. We believe that this one-way process, in which powers are transferred only in one direction, is not in British interests and is not the right way of creating European harmony. There is a great difference between European integration and European unity, although people have for some time tended to use the two phrases almost interchangeably.
	We understand absolutely the desire of our partners in Europe to build structures that make unthinkable the sort of deadly and protracted conflicts that have devastated Europe all too often, but today, surely we could and should be seeking more modern and sophisticated ways of bringing Europe together. If one cares about European harmony, as we do, the very last thing to do is to extend the areas in which the majority can ride roughshod over the wishes of a minority. That is a recipe for discord, not harmony. It is a recipe for division, not unity.
	The view from outside the European Union beltway is revealing. The Foreign Secretary referred to the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic; I shall quote the Speaker of the Czech Parliament, Mr. Václav Klaus. [Interruption.] It is worth listening to the quote because hon. Members may learn something from it. Mr. Klaus said:
	"The agreement from Nice was in no way about EU enlargement . . . It was about internal changes within the European Union, which might possibly facilitate"
	the entry of new members.
	However, there was nothing essential about EU enlargement in the agreement. In my opinion, the main thing was that in several hundreds of areas—I mean the regulation of this or that type of business, or the regulation of other matters—a huge shift occurred from a unanimous vote required for these matters until now to a majority vote."
	The important part follows:
	"This means that the role of an individual country is substantially decreasing while the role of the whole is substantially growing . . . It was yet another distinct step toward unification and toward transferring powers from individual states somewhere to the top."
	That is a penetrating analysis with which we agree.
	A brief look back at the words of the Government and the previous Foreign Secretary before departing for Nice confirms the accuracy of Mr. Klaus's view of the treaty's emphasis. The previous Foreign Secretary made several statements about what he would do at Nice. He leaves a difficult legacy for his successor. He said that he would not regard a change to qualified majority voting on most of the items on the list of 50 aspects proposed by the French presidency as acceptable. He believed that only a minority would be acceptable. However, he had a change of heart at the negotiating table and agreed to QMV for more than half of them.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that extending QMV to anti-discrimination measures would be unacceptable. He had a change of heart at Nice. He said that he was not wildly enthusiastic about the move on European political parties. Again, he had a sudden change of heart in the sunshine of Nice. Perhaps it was not unconnected with the proposal that he would take on the presidency of the European party of socialists. From his first days in office, the current Foreign Secretary knows that agreeing to extend QMV means that we lose influence and power.
	The Government agreed to the social chapter in the early days of the previous Parliament. They claimed that it would have no bad effects, and that there was nothing to worry about. However, they had to spend the election campaign trying to cover up the effect of the works council directive. The Government rightly object to it; we support them on that. However, it has gone through despite the Government's opposition because they gave up the veto.
	There is clear evidence of the loss of the influence of the House and the British Government through giving up the veto. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary can explain the benefits that accrue from extending QMV to article 13, which applies to anti-discrimination measures. How will it benefit the British public? What are the implications of extending QMV to articles 100(1) and 100(2)? In terms of the article, what does a shortage in the supply of specific products mean? To which products does it apply? What measures can we deploy since the previous Foreign Secretary signed us up to QMV? What great benefits flow to Britain from that?
	What would the Government's response be if the Foreign Secretary were outvoted on the choice of a common foreign policy representative? That could arise through a change that his predecessor agreed at Nice. Are the Government happy that, in principle, it is possible for European foreign policy to be run in the name of the British Government, represented by a person whose candidature they did not support?
	I have outlined only a handful of the commitments that the Government have signed. It is right to scrutinise them, and we shall do that in Committee. However, surely it is sensible to call a halt to the Bill and broaden the debate on the treaty's implications through a referendum. The public could then participate and express their views on it.
	Let us revert to enlargement and the idea that the necessary and desirable—in our view—reopening of the Nice treaty would delay enlargement. I have the direct quote to which I referred from the Foreign Secretary's predecessor, which comes from the debates after the Amsterdam treaty. He said:
	"One of the great gains of reaching agreement at Amsterdam is that it has cleared the way forward for enlargement."—-[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 918.]
	A year later, the then Foreign Secretary opined that there was no
	immense enthusiasm on the part either of Europe or of Britain to commence an intergovernmental conference so soon after Amsterdam."
	When that enthusiasm suddenly materialised, the right hon. Gentleman needed an excuse to justify the further intergovernmental conference and the further treaty, and he turned again to enlargement. He said:
	"Enlargement will not be possible unless we ratify the treaty of Nice in the meantime."—-[Official Report, 23 January 2001; Vol. 361, c. 797.]
	That is what he said earlier this year.
	We had earlier warned that further integration and further treaty changes that take us further down the path to political, old-fashioned, one-size-fits-all political integration will not expedite enlargement but delay it, as it is doing, by adding to the burden that applicants have to absorb. By generating political controversy, as evidenced in the Irish referendum, enlargement will be delayed.
	I said at the time of the Nice treaty:
	"This summit had nothing to do with what is needed to allow enlargement to take place. All the extensions of QMV—some major, some minor—go in one direction only, towards further integration."—[Official Report, 11 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 394.]
	We would have been a bit more relaxed if there had been any evidence that at Nice the Government were pressing for there to be a two-way street, with some powers being returned to member states for decision. That is how a modernising European Union should be developing. It should be aiming to decentralise.
	When the Minister for Europe was a Back-Bench Member and a strong europe sceptic, he used to make the case for a decentralised EU. As time has passed and the process of globalisation has accelerated, the case for decentralising the EU becomes stronger and stronger. Let us be clear that the Bill is not about enlargement. If anything, it is an impediment to enlargement. That which is necessary for enlargement has not been addressed.

Joyce Quin: The right hon. Gentleman says that the Bill has nothing to do with enlargement. Surely he remembers that at the time of the Amsterdam treaty there were various matters that were called left-overs. Those matters were dealt with at the Nice treaty, and there was a clear link between them and enlargement.

Francis Maude: I do not know whether the right hon. Lady, as Minister for Europe, drafted the then Foreign Secretary's words when he said that agreement at Amsterdam had cleared the way for enlargement. That seems to be fairly unequivocal and fairly unambiguous. He did not say, "By the way, there are all these other things that we must decide in the meantime."
	The matters that we are discussing are not needed for enlargement. We know that there is a political desire—this is what really is going on—among some leaders in Europe to take further the process of deeper political integration before enlargement happens. They suspect—for all I know they may be right—that the new candidate countries will be less amenable to proceeding with deepening integration than current members.
	It seems an un-European approach to decide to have a tightly closed club where we make our own rules before we open our arms to embrace the entire family of European nations, which is what I regard as the historic destiny of the EU, and which must be done. It seems profoundly wrong to introduce tighter rules and then to say to all candidate countries, "Here is it is, take it or leave it—these are the rules, which we decided while you were waiting outside, and you must accept them as they are." It is wrong that the EU has gone down that path. It is wrong also that the Government have acquiesced in, and in some ways promoted, that approach.
	The things that are necessary for enlargement to take place have not been addressed by the Government, and especially radical reform of the common agricultural policy. When I raised the issue during the previous Parliament, the then Foreign Secretary used to sneer and say, "That is completely unnecessary. It has all been dealt with at Berlin. There is nothing to worry about." However, the Prime Minister said—

Phyllis Starkey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Francis Maude: I must make some progress.
	The Prime Minister himself said, as long ago as 1995, in his early days as leader of the Labour party:
	"Britain could set the agenda in Europe . . . reforming the CAP both because it is right and"—
	this is important—
	"as a necessary precondition to the enlargement to include the countries of central and eastern Europe."
	Then, he was absolutely right: it was a necessary precondition. We know that it still is, because in all the negotiations that are going on there has been no agreement, so far as I am aware, on the chapter concerning agriculture with any of the candidate countries. There are big problems with structural funds as well, but the biggest problem is agriculture.
	When one asks someone from one of the Governments in question, "How is it going with the negotiations?", they say, "Oh, it's going splendidly. We've just got agriculture and the structural funds to deal with." Those are the big problems, the really difficult ones. That is why, if Nice had been genuinely a summit to deal with enlargement, it would have addressed those issues. However, it did not, and so far as I am aware, neither the then Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister made the slightest effort even to get the reform of the common agricultural policy on the agenda at Nice, let alone tried to get it dealt with. Yet by their own admission—now conveniently forgotten—they have accepted that that reform is essentially necessary to enable enlargement to take place.

Phyllis Starkey: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he had read the excellent report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, he would know that six of the applicant countries had closed the chapter on agriculture?

Francis Maude: This has been the longest-standing problem and it has delayed matters immensely. It took so long because it was necessary to negotiate immensely lengthy transitional proceedings, as there had been no serious reform of the CAP.
	Everyone agrees that the European Union has to change. It needs to turn the challenges facing us, which concern many people, into opportunities. The European Union needs to be more relevant and more immediate to its current and future members. The answer is not simply to steam on regardless in the same dogmatic direction. We must require the European Union to re-examine itself. It has already succeeded in building the biggest single market in the world, and I think that the previous Conservative Administration can take some credit for that. I spent two happy years in the late 1980s negotiating a number of the directives that opened up—not in a perfect way, of course—that single market.
	The European Union must now adapt to the era of decentralisation and to the network age. At present, too many of its structures are rigid, and too many of its aspirant members are being forced to sign up to the approaches of the past. In the network age, this rigid and centralised model of European power is not only inappropriate and outdated but a recipe for division and fracture. In today's world of global economic integration, the creation of big centralised blocs simply does not make sense any more.
	We in the European Union can no longer afford to be impervious to the trend of change across the world and still expect to succeed. Through low turnouts in European elections and falling support in opinion polls, the people of Europe have sent a clear message to their Governments. It is that real unity across Europe cannot be imposed by integrationist treaties or by diktat.
	Last September, the Danish people made their views clear in their referendum on the euro. In March, the Swiss rejected early membership of the EU by as many as four to one. Whatever the merits of the case for Swiss membership of the EU, that result ought at least to give us cause to stop and think, "Why did this happen?" Plenty of people might say, "The Swiss have just got to make the necessary changes to allow them to join." But should not we in the European Union, when we consider a stable democracy as prosperous as Switzerland, ask ourselves, "What is it about the European Union that makes a country as successful as Switzerland decide so overwhelmingly that it does not even want to contemplate negotiating to join it?" Of course, if Switzerland were to join the European Union, it would have to make a lot of changes. However, it is worth our while to reflect for a moment on whether the European Union could effect any changes to make itself an attractive place for a country as successful as Switzerland to join.
	We need a fresh and more modern approach to Europe. In this electronic age, the EU needs agility, adaptability, flexibility and a light touch from the state if we are to realise the goal of a stable, prosperous, outward looking, free market, democratic Europe. We have a positive vision of an EU of constant change, constant bargaining and constant negotiation. We believe that that vision is true to both the spirit of the goals of Europe's founding fathers and the demands of our age; and that it would free Europe to prosper, rather than bind it with rigid rule and diktat.
	A constitution for the EU, which has been proposed by some, would prevent that continual process of renewal, bargaining and change from happening. Far from lumbering from treaty to treaty, as the EU is increasingly prone to do, our vision would achieve a multi-system Europe in which groups of countries—different combinations for different purposes and to differing extents—would proceed to integrate and co-operate in different ways according to their different choices. That vision represents a more modern, more sophisticated, decentralised EU.
	We want an open, flexible, free enterprise Europe that is ready to serve the whole of Europe—a Europe that celebrates diversity in culture, ethnic background, language, history, outlook and perspective and which does not try to stifle and submerge that diversity. I am afraid that the Bill and the Nice treaty take Europe in the wrong direction—back to the old world of tightly integrated, centralised regional blocks. That is wrong, and we shall vote against the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker, I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has placed a 10-minute limit on all Back-Bench speeches. It applies from now on.

Joyce Quin: Unlike the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who spoke for the Opposition, I welcome the Nice treaty and the fact that we are beginning the ratification process in the House today. I warmly congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their appointment and wish them well in building on the work done by the Foreign Secretary's predecessor in the important sphere of European policy.
	The Nice treaty is fairly modest, but it makes real improvements, particularly in terms of vote reweighting in the Council of Ministers, sensible changes in the European Parliament and sensible reforms in the European Court of Justice. Overall, the Government promoted and safeguarded British interests in the negotiation and built on both the success of the Berlin settlement, which we debated in the House yesterday, and the gains that they achieved in the Amsterdam treaty.
	In all three negotiations, the Government showed that they could successfully negotiate for Britain without being isolated, and there was certainly no repetition of the disastrous policy of non-co-operation which the previous Government tried for a time. Furthermore, I find the Opposition's arguments curious. The treaty is modest, so wanting to hold a referendum on it when no referendum was held on either the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty, for which they were responsible, defies belief.
	Conservative Members often refer to attitudes and arguments in Denmark, where there is a strong degree of Euro-scepticism on occasion. I say to them that the Danish Folketing thought the treaty so modest that it did not represent changes in terms of integration. Therefore, the Folketing recommended that a referendum should not be held, and that recommendation was accepted. Indeed, there was a healthy majority in favour of the Nice treaty when it was voted on in the Danish Parliament.
	However, the fact that a referendum on the treaty is not being held in this country should not make us shy of having a public debate on Europe. Indeed, I am pleased that Europe, among many other important matters that were debated, was an issue in the general election campaign. I am glad that the result of the general election seemed to confirm that people believe that the Government have been doing a good negotiating job in Europe, and I strongly agree with that.

Win Griffiths: Was it a referendum on the euro?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have interventions from a sedentary position.

Joyce Quin: We should not be frightened of a big debate on issues such as the euro and enlargement. Enlargement is a tremendously important opportunity for the future of the European Union. Existing member states should prepare for enlargement, just as they prepared for the entry into force of the euro.
	I was fortunate recently to have the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Gunter Verheugen, visit my constituency and address a conference of representatives of the private and public sectors from urban and rural parts of the region. He encouraged people in the region to prepare for enlargement, and to build the necessary economic, political and social links with new member countries, so that we make a success of enlargement.
	I suggest to the Government—they are likely to do this in any case—that they go out to the people of Britain in the different regions and explain why enlargement is important and why it will bring enormous benefits not just to new member countries but to existing members. They should try to convey a sense of excitement about this historic project.
	I am glad that the Government have already highlighted the benefits of enlargement, and have drawn attention to the fact that previous enlargements have brought economic benefits, such as jobs and the expansion of the gross domestic product in both the applicant and existing member countries. Those trends will continue with future enlargements.
	I strongly support the provisions in the treaty on the European Parliament and co-decision. I believe that the European Parliament has used its powers responsibly. I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament can influence the decision-making process in the European Union.
	However, as a former Minister, I am allowed to be a mild heretic. I think that we should examine the old-fashioned distinction between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure, which I hope will become increasingly irrelevant with the reform of the common agricultural policy.
	Although there is no hope of this, I would also like the European Parliament to be able to decide for itself where it meets, rather than be subject to the unanimous decision of the Council. I know full well the realpolitik behind that: no one will challenge the one or two countries for which this is a vital national interest. None the less, it is a modest power for any organisation to be able to decide where it holds its meetings. Most of the organisations with which Members of Parliament come into contact have that modest power.

Michael Howard: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the writing into the treaty of the provisions on where the Parliament sits—thus making it impossible now to change that without a treaty change—was agreed to by the Government under the treaty of Amsterdam?

Joyce Quin: Indeed, and I am aware of the politics behind that decision. Many years ago, some German social democratic MEPs argued with their then leader, Helmut Schmidt, that he should push for a change of attitude on this matter in the Council. He told them firmly that it was not a vital national interest, and that there were many more important issues for him to promote and pursue. I understand why, in negotiations, Governments promote their most vital national interests, and why some of the other issues which, on a reasonable judgment, may be worth pursuing, are left to one side.
	My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mentioned some of the changes that have taken place in agriculture. I believe that the time is right to push for agricultural reform. Although it was not part of the Nice treaty, it was certainly part of the Berlin agreement. I believe that—not just because of the pressures of enlargement but because of changes within certain European Governments, particularly the German Government—we now have a chance to build up an alliance for agricultural change and reform, which will itself give us a unique opportunity. I urge my right hon. Friends to push ahead with agricultural reform at this juncture: if we can achieve it, it will make enlargement that much easier to achieve as well.
	I think that the Nice treaty is helpful, and represents a positive although modest way forward. I believe that it will help us to build on what we have already achieved. I commend the Government on their attitude in European negotiations on economic reform, and on the social chapter—the job-destroying social chapter that has actually resulted in the creation of extra jobs in our country. I commend them on their positive approach to environmental policy in Europe, and to enlargement.
	If these are our priorities post-Nice, we will not only make a success of European Union membership for the British people; we will help to create a European Union that will be to the benefit of all new and existing member countries.

Menzies Campbell: In European matters, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) speaks with rare authority and experience. Her speech encapsulated in a most persuasive way the issues with which we ought to be concerned today.
	I was not here at the time of the Single European Act, but I was certainly here during the Maastricht treaty proceedings. In comparison with the Maastricht treaty and the proceedings that surrounded it, the Nice treaty is little more than housekeeping. It justifies neither euphoria nor hysteria. It is certainly not a grand plan for the European Union; it is a framework treaty for enlargement. It is also true to say that the housekeeping has done little to bring Europe closer to the citizen. That may create a bond between those who speak in this debate, from whatever part of the House.
	The fact is that the decision-making process in Europe remains impenetrable to the ordinary observer, and almost daily makes a powerful case for reform. The patchwork of powers and responsibilities that have grown out of a number of treaties—not all of which are easy to reconcile with each other—still requires a healthy dose of transparency and openness.
	I do not believe that the Nice treaty is a great constitutional watershed, as Maastricht was and, indeed, as would be a decision to join the single European currency. Few would dare to suggest that the overall outcome of Nice has contributed much to the quality or efficiency of European governance. Nice represents at best a holding position until such time as the leaders of Europe find the will to adapt the institutions of the European Union to the realities of the kind of Europe of which the shadow Foreign Secretary spoke towards the end of his speech—with a great deal of which I found myself in agreement.
	Nice is about providing a framework for enlargement. It is about effecting the institutional reforms that are necessary to allow a union of up to 27 members to function. Of course, 27 members may not be the high water mark of enlargement. There are 13 applicant countries at different stages of the accession process, including Turkey. Reference was made during the debate on the Gracious Speech to the difficulties of accession for Turkey. As the Foreign Secretary noted, we have held out to Balkan countries such as Croatia the possibility of future EU membership because we want to help them move away from a period of political indecision—and, in some cases, chaos—towards a more rational structure. The possibility of EU membership has also helped ensure that the fledgling democratic institutions in those countries are better nurtured and sustained.
	The shadow Foreign Secretary prayed in aid a somewhat improbable ally in Mr. Prodi, but he was right to say that, in technical terms, the treaty of Nice is not required for enlargement. In theory, enlargement can happen without the Nice treaty, but what sort of EU would it be if we did not use the framework that that treaty contains?
	Moreover, as the Foreign Secretary noted, if we were to put the Nice treaty to one side and say, "We will now consider the question of enlargement," the target date of 2004 simply could not be achieved. Political considerations would mean that enlargement would be delayed for a very long time. That would be poor reward for the countries of eastern Europe, many of which have worked hard to achieve democratic standards and to move towards market economies in anticipation of early EU membership.
	We must ask ourselves whether the EU is outward-looking and willing to share the benefits and advantages of membership for the purposes of peace and prosperity across the continent. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative—as it ought to be—we should then ask ourselves how we can allow those benefits to be shared by others quickly and effectively.
	I share the Foreign Secretary's view that there can be no enlargement without ratification of the treaty by Ireland. Ireland provides an interesting illustration of the need to make the case for EU membership. Liberal Democrat Members have criticised the Government's timidity when it comes to making the case for Europe, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech in the City on the eve of the Gracious Speech foreign affairs debate presented a positive case for Europe—despite the fact that he took what I believe to be an unduly reticent approach to the question of membership of the single currency.
	The Irish result is a warning that politicians must make the case for Europe, and it shows that the requirement for unanimity in some matters means that a small country has the power to block, or even derail, the EU's progress. That rather gives the lie to the argument that we are on an unstoppable escalator, on the way to something that some describe as a superstate but rarely define.
	For example, the treaty extends qualified majority voting to 31 of the 70 or so articles that require unanimity. However, 17 of those articles refer to technical portions of the treaties dealing with appointments to the European Parliament, European committees and courts, and with those bodies' rules, procedures and management. Four of the other articles to which QMV has been extended cover matters on which Britain has an opt-out. The remaining 10 extensions deal with matters such as anti- discrimination practice, support to industry, priorities for structural funds, and environmental measures. In some areas, we are talking not about enforced harmonisation but about the exchange of information to encourage best practice. I see no case for a referendum on the treaty of Nice, as no issue of fundamental constitutional importance is at stake.
	I confess that I have a little difficulty with the Conservative position on the matter. Before the general election, the Conservatives said that a Conservative Government would not ratify the treaty of Nice but, in opposition, they now call for a referendum. It seems to me that that position can be interpreted as, "The people must speak—but not if we're in government, when we'll make sure that we speak for them."
	That is a rather confusing and confused position, and I shall make my opinion clear. Referendums should be employed sparingly for principled reasons of constitutional significance. If fundamental constitutional change is involved, as it was in the Maastricht treaty and would be were we to join the single European currency, the approval of the British people should be sought in a referendum. Indeed, it was the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Paddy Ashdown, who was the first to call for a referendum on entry to the single currency.
	Where do we find such fundamental constitutional change in the Nice treaty? Where are the marching legions besieging the alleyways of Westminster with their calls for a referendum on Nice? Where are the crowds demanding delay in ratification? People are breaking into Menwith Hill because they feel so strongly about missile defence, but I have not been accosted on my way to the House of Commons by anyone even passingly resembling an ancient mariner wanting to ensure that I did not help to pass legislation to ratify the treaty of Nice. I cannot even remember receiving a single letter on the topic in the past four weeks, except for those from members of parties that are overwhelmingly opposed to any further integration into the European Union.
	The Irish vote makes it even more important for the EU to undertake a serious round of reform. We have to reconnect the EU with the citizens of the nation states that make up the Union and move away from that rather remote elitism that can often be detected in the air surrounding Brussels institutions. I happen to think that an overwhelming commitment to, and a determination to press ahead with, enlargement will help to provoke that very discussion. We want a European Union that is more democratic and more liberal, and one that concentrates its energies on doing what it does best, not on interfering in every area of national legislative competence. The EU should stay clear of areas where its writ is unnecessary.
	One of the achievements of the former Prime Minister, John Major, is that the principle of subsidiarity is ruthlessly applied by the EU. I have no difficulty with decentralisation—after all, my party argued for decentralisation in the United Kingdom for some time while those who now think that decentralisation in Europe is so important put up bulwarks against the notion that the Welsh should have an Assembly or the Scots a Parliament.

John Bercow: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that nothing of constitutional significance is imperilled by the extension of qualified majority voting, but why will not he accept that the merits of the case against discrimination in general, and the merits or demerits of particular anti-discrimination measures, should pre-eminently be matters for determination by democratically elected Members of the British legislature? Those matters should not fall within the rubric of the European Union.

Menzies Campbell: If I interpret that intervention correctly, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he does not believe that the European Union should take a position on, for example, the discrimination faced by women. That is precisely the sort of issue on which the EU should take a position. There should also be an EU position on discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity. The hon. Gentleman and I may exist on two different planets on the issue, but the progress of events since we joined the European Coal and Steel Community—to give it its technically correct name—has favoured those who share my view, not those who share his.
	One of the more positive aspects of Nice was the pledge of member state Governments to launch a debate about the future of the European Union. That will result in the convening of an intergovernmental conference in 2004, specifically designed to establish a more precise delimitation of competencies between the European Union and the nation states upon which it relies for its legitimacy.
	I do not shrink from the notion that there should be a constitution for Europe. The shadow Foreign Secretary set himself against that, but I believe that it is only by being clear and open about structures and aspirations that the European Union can hope to retain the support of the people of Europe. People have to be comfortable with the institutions designed to represent them and they are most comfortable in such circumstances if they understand the limits of the powers of these institutions.
	In short, we need to know in clear and simple language what the European Union can and cannot do. The treaty of Nice does not achieve these objectives. It was, as the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West pointed out in an intervention, designed to deal with what were rather ungraciously described as the Amsterdam leftovers. However, the treaty of Nice provides a framework for enlargement and in my view it should be supported for that reason.
	There is one point to which I hope we shall return in Committee. The enabling provisions in clauses 1(2) and 1(3) are, as I understand it, unprecedented. They raise the possibility of changes of law based on affirmative procedure. We will seek to inquire of the Government what is the justification for that apparent innovation in dealing in this House with matters connected with the European Union.
	We should be swift to offer the benefits of European Union membership to those who wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to become members. We should ratify the treaty as soon as possible, which is why Liberal Democrat Members will support the Government in the Lobby this evening.

Denzil Davies: The Bill seeks to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to incorporate into the laws of the United Kingdom various parts—most parts, it seems—of the treaty of Nice. The 1972 Act has been amended many times over the past 30 years, and some of the amendments to it, especially those made in the 1980s and 1990s, could be said to provide a map of the long march from the Common Market of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s to the centralised European state that is emerging.
	It is fair to say that on the scale of integration, the treaty of Nice is not as high as, for example, the Single European Act, the Maastricht treaty or, indeed, the treaty of Amsterdam. Nevertheless, it is a further step in the integration process. That process can be effected and completed only by taking away powers from the Parliaments and peoples of member states and transferring them to the institutions of what I see as the emerging European state.
	In the aftermath of the Irish referendum on the Nice treaty, Mr. Michael McDowell, the Attorney-General of Ireland, describes clearly—as one would expect from an Irish Attorney-General—that process of integration. He said in The Daily Telegraph that there is a widespread perception that developments in Europe were taking a turn, or moving in a direction, that caused deep unease. The article continued:
	"He said 'a narrow class of activist office-holders, elected and unelected', were charging ahead of public opinion with proposals for a European constitution, a justiciable Bill of Rights, EU direct taxation, a defence arm, a judicial machinery to prosecute and punish citizens, an elected EU president, and an EU government."
	He said that few if any of those proposals carry popular significant support and continued:
	"While many have been put forward separately, they constitute, in the round, the indiciae of a European state in substance.'"
	That is the view of the Irish Attorney-General, whom I should have thought understood these matters very well.
	The most integrationist aspect of the Nice treaty is that in about 31 of its articles, the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers has been replaced by qualified majority voting. We have heard the Government line: "Who cares who becomes the registrar of the European Court? Why should those Poles be allowed to veto the appointment of a registrar?" Perhaps the appointment does not matter, but several articles from which the unanimity requirement has been taken away are quite important. For instance, there are the measures that allow the EC to give financial assistance—the payment of money—to states in "severe difficulties".
	Negotiation, completion and conclusion of agreements relating to trade in services, which is very relevant to the GATT negotiations and the World Trade Organisation, are also now subject to qualified majority voting. Health and safety at work, working conditions, social exclusion, industrial policy, economic and social cohesion, certain environmental measures, and economic and financial co-operation with third countries are surely important matters, but we are losing the unanimity rule in respect of those as well.
	Unanimity has also been removed from proposals to establish enhanced co-operation, as it is called. In the strange language of this Byzantine organisation, that is known as a "deepening" of the Community. Again, the veto has been taken away. Those matters are not trivial; they are of considerable importance, but a democratically elected British Government can now be outvoted on them.
	The case for the veto lies not just with the importance or otherwise of the subject matter of the veto. In any international or supranational institution, the veto protects, and is the badge of, the democracy of the member state. That is why, in most supranational organisations, unanimity is usually the rule. The veto is under pressure not just because of enlargement but because the EU is moving away from what has been described as a supranational body, and is gradually moving towards an emerging state. As we have seen with other treaties, this is the beginning of the end of the supranational phase, and the beginning of the EU as a state in its own right. The veto is simply not compatible with such an arrangement.
	Once the veto goes, a democratically elected British Government can be outvoted by a group of states whose Governments are not accountable to the British electorate; those Governments might not be of the political hue or persuasion for which the British electorate would vote. Let us consider France. It grieves me to say so but, from reading the newspapers every day, it is clear that financial corruption has been endemic at the highest levels of French Government for a very long time, regardless of which party is in power. That is a matter for the French electorate—they might like it or they might not care about it. However, I hope that the British electorate would not tolerate such financial corruption from a British Government. Yet a French Government, together with others, will be able to outvote a British Government, even though the other Governments are not responsible for, or in any way accountable to, the British electorate that put their Government into negotiations.
	I am sure that the Italians are happy with the Berlusconi Government. However, I venture to suggest that a British electorate would not vote for the policies that Berlusconi stands for and that he has submitted to the Italian electorate. However, the Italian Government, together with other Governments, could outvote a British Government and impose polices on a British electorate that would never countenance supporting a Government such as Berlusconi's. What if—perish the thought—a neo-fascist Government were democratically elected in a European country? Recently, the Austrians had a wobble and perhaps such a Government could be formed again.
	Apparently, we are not going to give up any more vetoes—we are going to fight to the death over the next lot. The next time, Ministers will be like the Spartans at the pass of Thermopylae. The corridors of power will be piled high with the corpses of British Ministers, as they fight for the remaining 31-odd vetoes.
	Are we really saying that we are prepared to accept the votes of a democratically elected neo-fascist Government in Europe who will then, along with other countries, be able to impose their will on a British electorate, who would, I hope, never countenance the election of such a Government? The issue is not the exercise of the veto in votes on registrars, or even the importance of the veto in itself; the veto is the badge of, and the bulwark and protection for, the democracy of the nation state within a supranational or centralised European state.
	To add insult to injury, I note that clause 3 will allow some vetoes to be given to the European Parliament. The Parliament does not call them "vetoes"; a veto is nasty, but a co-decision is wonderful. The Parliament is to be given the power of co-decision. A decision will be made by the Council of Ministers using majority voting and sent to the Parliament for a co-decision. If the Parliament says no, that is not a veto; it is the Parliament failing to exercise its power of co-decision. The Bill takes away our vetoes and gives some of them to the European Parliament. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe will accept a few amendments in Committee to restore those vetoes to this Parliament or, if we do not want to call them "vetoes", to give us the power of co-decision.

Stephen Ladyman: My right hon. Friend asks whether we will be giving power to democratically elected Governments with whom we do not agree. My quick calculation shows that to get an agreement on qualified majority voting, we would need about 120 votes, and as even the largest country would have only 29 votes, self-evidently we are not giving power to any one nation.

Denzil Davies: Not at the moment, but Governments change. I was making a point of principle: we are giving away power because at the moment we can stop things, but in future we will be unable to do so. The British electorate will be unable to have any influence on that process. I was making a democratic point, and if my hon. Friend cannot understand it, we really are in some difficulty over the European Union.
	The Bill will lead to further diminution of the powers of this House and of the democracy of the British people. I do not believe that the majority of my constituents, or of the British people, want further integration. The Danes did not want that, and nor did the Irish—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Michael Howard: It is always a particular pleasure for me to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who represents my home town, in which I spent the first 18 years of my life and where I went to school. That pleasure is greatly enhanced by the fact that I entirely agree with so much of his speech, and I congratulate him on it.
	The treaty that the Bill will enable the Government to ratify is extremely wide ranging and far reaching. In addressing its provisions, it is difficult to know where to start and where to end. It is a treaty without a theme. Ostensibly, it is all about the enlargement of the European Union, and we are all in favour of that, but the most cursory glance at its provisions makes it clear that most of them have little, if anything, to do with enlargement.
	Moreover, the important changes that enlargement would involve, such as reform of the common agricultural policy, are completely ignored in the treaty, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary. The treaty of Nice is, as treaties go, a great pretender. It purports to lay the ground for enlargement, but fails to do so; it contains many provisions that have nothing to do with enlargement and that we should not embrace.
	The declarations that accompany the treaty cover many vital issues, some of which I have addressed before in the House. I shall not touch on them this evening because they are not part of the body of the treaty. There is more than enough in the body of the treaty to occupy the attention of the House, and it is on some of those provisions that I wish to concentrate. Some of them are welcome. They may be unnecessary for enlargement, and do not therefore have to be included in the treaty, but I have no particular difficulty with the provisions relating to the number of Commissioners or the weighting of voting.
	I am also an enthusiast for what has come to be called variable geometry and what, in the Euro-jargon to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli referred, is known as enhanced co-operation. It is through variable geometry and enhanced co-operation that the EU can develop a new, essential dimension of flexibility. If those countries that wish to integrate more closely are permitted to do so without it being a requirement that every other member state should join in, we have the beginnings of an imaginative and innovative structure that may well prove to be the model for other parts of the world to follow. It would enable the United Kingdom to say to our partners, "We have no desire to stop you doing what you want to do, so long as you do not make us do what we don't want to do." It would mean that the UK could stop saying "no".
	Nevertheless, some aspects of the provisions relating to enhanced co-operation in the treaty of Nice cause concern. The original provisions in the treaty of Amsterdam include what became known as the emergency brake—a kind of veto, as the right hon. Gentleman said—which enables member states to refer contentious proposals for enhanced co-operation to the European Council, where they have to be approved unanimously. That provision is deleted by the treaty of Nice, which is a mistake. Particularly in its early stages, it is important that enhanced co-operation has the blessing of all member states. The treaty of Amsterdam appeared to secure that; the treaty of Nice does not.
	The provisions on which I wish to spend most of the short time available this afternoon relate to the extension of qualified majority voting. Two reasons are usually given in support of the proposals. Unfortunately, as is often the case, they are contradictory and mutually inconsistent. First, we are told that an extension of QMV is essential if the EU is to be enlarged. How can important decisions continue to be taken on the basis of unanimity, we are asked, if the union is to include so many new member states? Unanimity, it is said, would lead to paralysis, so an extension of QMV is essential.
	The second justification is that, if one examines the areas to which QMV will apply, one finds that they are all technical, narrow and inconsequential. No essential national interest is involved, the areas concerned are of little importance and it is sensible for them to be treated in that way. However, many decisions that need to be taken by an enlarged EU will be important and will involve member states essential interests. If QMV is an essential means of preventing paralysis and enabling the decision-making machinery of the union to work when it is enlarged, why restrict it to technical areas? The flexibility which, indeed, will be essential when the union is enlarged, can be provided much more effectively by enhanced co-operation than by QMV. That is the best way forward; I hope that the EU will follow that path.
	Let us examine in a little more detail the proposals for QMV and, in particular, the extent to which they are technical and unimportant. In doing so, let us give at least a passing glance to what has happened in the past. There have been many occasions when QMV has been extended, often under a Conservative Government, to areas where, we thought, it would not give rise to any problems. I shall give one specific example. I was a member of the Government, though not of the Cabinet, who extended QMV to decision making on issues relating to health and safety. I am not for one moment suggesting that I would have opposed that extension had I been in the Cabinet at the time; it seemed a sensible thing to do. Were we not, after all, enthusiastically in favour of proper health and safety provision? And were our provisions not among the best in Europe? Might it not have been the case that some of our partners with less stringent requirements were stealing a competitive march on us by avoiding their proper obligations? From every point of view, was not that measure clearly in our national interest?
	I would have answered those questions in the affirmative. As we know, they were answered in the affirmative by the Cabinet and, in particular, by the Minister with responsibility for those matters, who was none other than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). I emphasise that I do not criticise him for agreeing to that step, which I supported at the time; I am sure that I would have done the same thing myself. But what happened? Far from restricting the scope of the relevant provision to legitimate questions of health and safety, we discovered, not long afterwards, that the provisions were being used to force through the working time directive, which has only the most tenuous connections with health and safety. Those of us who were concerned with these issues in the previous Conservative Government were outraged; outraged and impotent.
	Indeed, I recall a discussion in which my right hon. and learned Friend, just as resolute in his opposition to the working time directive as the rest of us, said that had he known that the health and safety provisions were to be used to impose, by a qualified majority, the working time directive, he would not have supported the extension of QMV. So, in examining what may appear to be technical or innocuous measures in respect of which QMV is to be applied, it is as well to bear in mind the mischief that they may contain.

Mark Hendrick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Michael Howard: I shall not give way; I am afraid that I have no time to do so.
	I shall mention just one such example of the extension of QMV by the treaty of Nice. Article 100, on which the right hon. Member for Llanelli touched, provides that appropriate measures, including financial assistance, may be agreed to aid member states in severe difficulty. What might that mean? Let us explore hypothetically what it might mean.
	We all know that pensions will be a considerable problem for many countries in future. We all know that, in the United Kingdom, we have made better provision for our pension liabilities and obligations than others. What if in future article 100 were used to provide for financial assistance to countries that get themselves into severe difficulties because they cannot meet their pension obligations? There is nothing in article 100 to rule that out.
	If I am wrong in my analysis, I hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will point that out. If there is a flaw, I would like it to be identified. If I am right, however, can there be any doubt that it would be seriously and fundamentally contrary to the interests of this country that article 100 of the treaty of Nice should be permitted to go through?
	My opposition to article 100 and other similar articles owes nothing to dogma, doctrine or any anti- Europeanism. It is based on the only principle that we should apply to every measure that comes before this House: is it in the interests of this country and the people whom we are here to represent? Any objective application of that principle to this treaty and this Bill would lead to but one conclusion. That is why I hope that the Second Reading of the Bill will be rejected.

Gisela Stuart: The Nice treaty is the latest of a number of treaties on the role and competence of the European Union. The EU has changed its name over the decades. It has evolved, but insufficiently to meet the changing world and even the objectives that it set itself 50 years ago.
	For many people like me, the Common Market of the 1970s was a liberator. We could work in member states without work permits—the free movement of labour. The EU of today is too often perceived as an institution that stops people from doing things or tells them what to do.
	The recent rejection of the treaty of Nice by the people of Ireland in a referendum should not be brushed aside lightly. The motives of those voting against it were no doubt mixed, but we do not have a right to interpret what voters really meant. "Comrades, there must be no compromise with the electorate", is not an appropriate response.
	Three basic questions should be asked of any democratic institution. Does it solve problems? Are those affected by decisions represented? Do those affected by the decisions know who made them? The EU must improve as a democratic institution. If I were to choose just one example of how it could do so, it would be the system of weighted votes, which was one of the most contentious issues at Nice. The qualified majority threshold, the blocking minority combined with the population safeguard, cannot be explained in such a way as to argue that they bring Europe closer to the people by making European decision making clearer.
	The current mood towards the EU is in marked contrast to the hopes and enthusiasm that surrounded its birth at the end of the second world war. However, it is fair to say that 50 years ago people would have been astonished by the degree of political and economic integration that has since taken place on our continent. There have been significant changes—most notably the unification of Germany, the end of the cold war and prospects for enlargement to the east. However, there are a number of issues that must be addressed now if the EU is to retain, let alone increase, the confidence of electorates.
	In the debates surrounding the EU and the potentially enlarged Union, politics and economics are mixed. That has always been so, ever since the formation of the European Coal and Steel Community. In general, the path of economic integration has been clearer than the political destination of the EU. It is often not clear whether politics or economics is in the driving seat. Indeed, the priority has varied from time to time, but one thing was always clear: monetary union was to follow political union. The order has now been reversed, which has added to people's confusion about where Europe is heading.
	I shall deal first with economics. With some justification, Monnet can be seen as the father of the EU. He was certainly a visionary, but he was always a practical man. He believed in the benefits of what might be termed liberal capitalism, and he admired America. We should note both those facts.
	While there is much to learn from America, European countries are different and they do not have to become mirrors of the United States. Whatever the framework chosen to reflect different cultural and political traditions, there are certain economic imperatives to be met. In recent years it has been noticeable that the people who were most sure that Europe and its new currency would soon and easily challenge the dollar were often those most hostile to the basis that underpins the dynamism of the US economy and the dollar, particularly the emphasis on the market.
	The European Coal and Steel Community was essentially a liberal market solution that could be followed as an example in a broader economic context in the treaty of Rome, the single market programme and subsequent reform agendas. Before embarking on any new economic or social initiatives, Governments in Europe would be better employed in ensuring that labour, product and capital markets function in the way envisaged in the Spaak report.
	The report, tabled in April 1956, remains a key document and was the basis of the treaty of Rome. It is the main philosophical antecedent of the approach to economic integration which has been prevalent in the EU ever since, yet if we look at the progress made in the past 45 years, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor might ask their opposite numbers to stand and deliver what has already been promised. That has not been delivered. For example, there is no genuine single market in financial services, and recent German opposition to the take-over directive shows how far we still are from accepting the logic of the Spaak report.
	I turn now to politics. Broadly speaking, for most of modern history there have been two alternative ways of organising society—a nation state or an empire. Neither is an attractive model for the EU. The EU is said to be a unique construction. It was a deliberate pooling of national power or sovereignty in a clearly defined area, and the placing of that power under the control of an entity that was common to the member states, but none the less legally independent.
	The route followed by the EU—via the original ECSC, the EEC, then the EC—is, we are told, towards ever closer political union, which has never been tried before and which has an unstoppable momentum. It is not always clear where this momentum is taking us, but it is like riding a bike—we cannot stop, and we must keep going forward or we will fall off. That is not my experience of riding a bike. It is possible to stop. We can put the brakes on. We can put our foot down. We do not fall off. We can look around and decide where we want to go.
	On the whole, the lack of precision about the political endgame and its institutional framework has not seemed to matter much up till now. At the end of the war, everyone in Europe shared a widespread feeling that things could not go on as before. A new order was needed. If anyone had asked what the EU, in one of its previous incarnations, was for, the answer would have been obvious: to stop Germany and France ever again going to war against each other.
	That objective has been achieved and no longer provides a credible basis for taking Europe forward. To the question, "What is Europe for?", we must provide an up-to-date answer that people can support, in language that they understand. To the cognoscenti, posing such a question lacks sophistication and subtlety, but they are wrong. The question must be addressed.
	The structure of the ECSE and the function of the high authority followed clearly from the answer in 1951, and I suspect that the same is true today. Providing an answer for present member states will not be easy, but I am certain that one of the purposes of the existing EU is to help to underpin democracy and economic prosperity in central Europe.
	Whatever the justification for the Nice treaty and whatever its failings, it has been determined as the channel for moving forward with enlargement. The presidency conclusions of the Gothenburg Council in June 2001 state:
	"Enlargement and globalisation present the EU with great opportunities and challenges."
	It does. Enlargement will test the hinge of national interest and genuine European solidarity. Often, in Eurospeak, the latter is a cloak for the former.
	Enlargement is a challenge for some recent entrants, for example, Spain, Ireland and Portugal, who have been major recipients of European assistance. It is a challenge for France and Germany—perhaps particularly for France, for whom the EU is often seen as an extension of the French state. It is a challenge for us here too. In meeting all those challenges and others it will be essential to be able to state clearly Europe's basic function and purpose.
	I might be seen as an example of the forces that shaped modern Europe. I am German by birth, my mother is a refugee from eastern Europe, and I am now a British Member of Parliament representing Neville Chamberlain's old constituency. I hope that no one is in any doubt of my fundamental commitment to Europe.
	However, before we move to the intergovernmental conference in 2004 we, as politicians, will have to be able to answer some fundamental questions, such as what the EU does for its citizens, how those are citizens represented, and who can they hold accountable for decisions.
	In other words, if we are to engage people in debate and take them with us, we need to be able to state in simple terms the direction, role and competence of the EU. In plain language, the fundamental question that we need to able to answer is: what is the European Union for?

William Cash: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) for one very good reason, which is that she asked the right question. The problem is that she came up with the wrong answer. The difficulty is that Europe's purpose is ever greater integration, and whether democracy and accountability can exist in such an environment is the question that we face in the House and throughout Europe. The Irish and Danish referendums clearly demonstrated that, as did I in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) earlier today with respect to the Conservative party's refusal to engage in proper referendums on the question of further integration from Maastricht onwards until the Nice treaty.
	I want to deal with a broader question. I speak as one whose father, who received the military cross, was killed in the last war in Normandy. That adds a certain poignancy to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. Those of us who want a peaceful and stable Europe must ask whether that is what the arrangements will provide. Nothing would be worse than for the EU, for which I voted in 1975 in the context of that time, to implode because of the tensions that are created by going down the wrong route towards an undemocratic and unaccountable Europe. We have only to consider the low growth and job difficulties in the eurozone to understand that point.
	We have only to look at what went on in Gothenburg to understand the alienation that exists between the electorates of Europe and the elite, and how the EU is embattled and imprisoned by the force of political concern about what is going on. No one who is responsible could possibly ignore that, any more than Romano Prodi could possibly argue with any legitimacy that the Irish people must have another referendum because the original referendum was undemocratic.
	The first Danish referendum, in which the Danes voted no, was disgracefully overturned with my Government's connivance. In "German Comments", produced by Konrad Adenaeur Siftung, an editorial at the time said that elections had become a form of protest and must be stopped. It is incredible for such language to persist from those days until Romano Prodi's recent disgraceful remarks in Ireland. We must take the matter seriously. By renegotiating, it is possible to get the whole ramshackle, undemocratic, unaccountable and idiosyncratic kaleidoscope back in focus.
	I am arguing not for withdrawal, but for a proper intergovernmental conference at which member states can, instead of making proposals such as the Nice treaty, sit down and ask themselves the question that was rightly put by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston: what is Europe for? How will we have a stable Europe when it is perfectly clear that the direction in which it is going is being rejected by its electorates left, right and centre? I do not believe for one minute that that view is confined to the countries that I have mentioned. It is not confined to the United Kingdom, where the decision would be clear if a referendum were held now.
	The same view prevails in central and eastern Europe. I have served on the Select Committee on European Scrutiny for 17 years, so I have visited the countries and met people there. Although the elites have been blackmailed into accepting the acquis communautaire—that is basically what happened—and their parliamentary processes have been absorbed for an entire year in adopting something that the people do not want, they are now signing up to join a European Union that will frustrate and undermine the democratic spirit that gave rise to the enormous burst of freedom that we saw in the springtime of nations. That is why I want enlargement, but not on the basis of crushing out the democratic spirit. Believe me, that is what will happen.
	We must also consider a further question: the broader picture that lies behind those circumstances. It is about the balance of power in Europe. Nobody should have any misunderstanding about that. As Bismarck said, it is those who speak about "Europe" who should be most distrusted. The bottom line is that we are now engaged in a tectonic movement in the balance of power in Europe, which is being carried out through the mechanism of institutional change. The reality is the driving force of national interests, based on an apparent political union that will become a legal framework. Through the legal processes of the European Court of Justice and the European Communities Act 1972, that framework will impose upon this country and others a requirement to obey laws that are, for example, passed by majority voting.
	I must differ from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in respect of the variable geometry and flexibility that he advocated. When one engages in the concept of enhanced co-operation, as the treaty does, one should consider what happened under monetary union, which was described by the European Commission as the best form of flexibility yet produced and which led me to table 200-odd amendments to the Bill on the Maastricht treaty. We said that we would accept the framework, but not prevent the other member states from going ahead. That is the implicit basis on which the enhanced co-operation will operate in relation to all areas, including, despite the Government's denials, defence, foreign policy and all the other matters to which the Nice treaty refers, following and based on Maastricht and Amsterdam. It is an accumulative, aggregate process of an undemocratic and unaccountable Europe. Anybody who misunderstands that is missing the target altogether.
	I believe that what is happening is the creation of a Europe that is based fundamentally on the predominance of Germany. The German people know and understand that. I have many friends in Germany and they tell me the same thing. The problem is not simple; it is about the aggregate of power, not only in relation to the majority voting increase that Germany has clearly acquired in the treaty, but to the countries that depend on Germany. We must be careful about the direction in which we are moving. Many people may disagree with me, but that is my judgment.
	We are moving towards a more deeply taxed Europe. The functions that are being created, including those under flexibility and enhanced co-operation, are increasing exponentially. They must be paid for. That is why Hans Eichel recently said that a much more invasive tax policy is needed in Europe. That is why Romano Prodi has asked for £60 billion. All that will remove the House's ability to resist. Public services in this country are constrained by European Union monetary rules. If we subscribe to the increased functions, the whole process will continue to invade the rights and privileges of the House. We are moving dangerously further down the road of an undemocratic, European Government—that is what we are considering, not a confederation of nation states.
	I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was here today. I shall be interested to know how he will vote. He said that he supported the Nice treaty. I dedicated my pamphlet to him today, and I hope that he will enjoy a little light reading matter.
	We are in danger of taking a one-way ticket on a route to an undemocratic and unsustainable Europe. I shall fight against that with all the heart that I can summon.

Peter Mandelson: I strongly agree with all the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he opened the debate, especially those on the negotiations about the Nice accession treaty. Britain has secured most of, if not all, its objectives, and it would be profoundly against the United Kingdom's national interests if enlargement proceeded without ratification of the treaty. Again, the lesson is that it is better to be in there, fighting convincingly and competently for our British national interests, and using alliances and influences, than to stand isolated on the sidelines, as the previous Government did for many years.
	The choice for Britain is not between a Europe that we find unacceptable and the Conservative delusion of being in Europe but not run by Europe, whatever that means. It is between being out of Europe—Conservative policies would inevitably lead to that—and playing a proper role in shaping the reformed and changed Europe that we need and want. That is the central point of my remarks.
	Nice is essential to bring about reform so as to pave the way for enlargement, but it only gets us to first base in the wider task of EU reform. Pro-Europeans should be the first to recognise and argue that today's Europe, with its institutions, working practices and policy priorities, is not perfectly designed for the challenges ahead. Enlargement will profoundly change the European Union.
	The EU's overall direction needs to be clearer, and I sympathise with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). Our objectives for Europe need to be much clearer. There should be a much sharper focus on the core tasks that form the EU's priorities. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, Europe can add value through those tasks. We should also focus on the way in which we secure a proper balance between the responsibilities of the EU and those of member states and national Governments, and between the EU's institutions and those that rightly remain the responsibility of member states.
	The EU is facing up to those issues and to the sheer practicalities of the way in which a new EU with 25 and possibly more members will work in practice. It behoves all member states to be brutally realistic about the paralysis that threatens the EU if we do not get enlargement right. When unanimity is required, it will be much more difficult to reach a meaningful agreement with such a large number of members. Even when the EU makes decisions through QMV, it will be much harder for 25 than for 15 member states to reach a good decision. How do we avoid paralysis creeping into the operation?
	It is the job of the 2004 intergovernmental conference to grasp the nettle of fundamental reform in the EU. It will be difficult for Britain to grapple with much of it. There will be no easy debates or issues to resolve when we tackle fundamental reform in the EU. However, it will not be so uncomfortable for our country or our Government that we should stand aside and leave others to lead the debate. What are some of the key pointers that we might identify in distilling a British approach?
	First, we should not get hung up on semantics and words such as federal or federalism. They mean different things to different people. Federalism means decentralisation to the Germans but centralisation to the British. The EU is a confederation of nation states; it is a hybrid, which is part intergovernmental and part supranational. Sovereignty is pooled but not lost. That will remain the permanent basis for the EU, and we should not therefore go up hill and down dale in pursuit of semantic argument.
	Secondly, an EU constitution is already set out in its treaties. It needs greater clarity and it needs to be fastened down. We need to work hard to derive some basic rules from it. However, we should do that instead of starting to rewrite an EU constitution from scratch.
	Thirdly, the Commission fulfils an essential role. It is the motor of the EU, for example, in policing the single market and competition policy. However, the Commission should not have carte blanche to exercise its competence as it chooses simply because it has such competence in specific matters. It should conform to EU priorities that have been set out by the European Council. It should respect subsidiarity in our arrangements.
	Fourthly, the European Parliament plays an important legislative and scrutiny role, and I want it to be effective. However, it lacks the legitimacy to set the strategy for Europe. It has been suggested that the European Parliament should be given the power to elect the President of the Commission. I believe that that would confuse the Commission's primary accountability, which is to the Council, not the Parliament.
	Fifthly, the Council needs radical reform to be effective. It needs a fewer number of councils. It should have four or five instead of the current 17. It needs a co-ordinating group of senior Ministers to meet regularly to prepare and follow up Council meetings. The rotating six-month presidency should be replaced, and the way should be opened for the European Council to decide when it is willing to accept more QMV for specific decisions.
	Sixthly, like others who have spoken, I support enhanced co-operation in an enlarged Europe. However, there should be no permanent inner group or presiding core, for which the French Government are canvassing. It would exclude Britain while we are not members of the eurozone.
	Seventhly, in a larger Europe, there is already growing concern about the reach and accountability of the EU in terms of people's everyday lives and its relationship with the general public. We need to reassure Europe's citizens that their rights are respected and that democratic values are being entrenched. Perhaps we need, therefore, to reconsider the status of the charter of rights, as revised so as not to conflict with the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998.
	There is no doubt about the challenging and extensive agenda that the points that I have raised—and many others—represent in the coming months and year: an agenda which we must all address. There is much to confront. There is an enormous amount on which to find agreement among some disparate member states.
	The future-of-Europe debate is vital. I sympathise with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). Irrespective of any issue to do with the single currency, the debate on the future of Europe should pre-empt or go alongside any separate consideration of Britain's membership of the single currency.
	I suggest that the public will be much more likely to engage in any future debate about the single currency if they see that we are facing and fully debating the wider questions that are of great concern to them with the maximum transparency and frankness in the coming months and years. I hope and trust that that is what the Government will be doing.

Sue Doughty: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech today. I am conscious of the great honour that my constituents conferred on me in voting for me to be their Member. Some Members may have been slightly surprised at the result at Guildford, but it is important to remember that the people of Guildford are a thoughtful bunch with a wide range of backgrounds and experiences.
	When I decided to apply for selection by a constituency, Guildford was definitely my first preference. We who come from Yorkshire are hard to please. Nowhere else seems as beautiful as Yorkshire. However, in the Guildford constituency, there are lovely Surrey hills, beautiful villages such as Shalford, which is my home, Bramley, and Cranleigh, where there is a lovely food market. There are many nice shops, and little pubs and coffee shops to visit after the shopping has been done. It is a wonderful area in which to live.
	We are about to have our own brand of locally produced food, bearing the name Surrey Hills. Look out for it when it comes. Like other farming communities, we have had to delay things this year. We will welcome support when we finally go to market.
	There are other good things about Surrey and Guildford. As a Yorkshire woman, I think that I finally have a dispensation from the home camp to support Surrey cricket, and very welcome it is too. It is a fabulous cricket team to support. The Benson and Hedges cup is coming up, and Surrey won the county championship last year. The club is the mainstay of the British team, especially on its winning days. Surrey is a wonderful place.
	Surrey cricket club does not represent our only champions. We have an ice hockey team too. I can tell right hon. and hon. Members who have not been to an ice hockey match that it is a lovely family sport which many Guildford families attend. The Guildford team won the British national league championship and the play-offs last year.
	Guildford is more than a pretty town and a shopping centre. It is a thriving cultural, academic and social hub. It is dominated by its cathedral. The arts play a strong role in the community, and all right hon. and hon. Members will have heard of the Yvonne Arnaud theatre, which is much in need of support. It is a centre for commercial theatre in the south-east. For those who are still learning their skills in the performing arts, we have the school of acting and the academy of contemporary music.
	Guildford has been home to famous mathematicians. We all know of Charles Dodgson, or Lewis Carroll. It was also home to Alan Turing, one of the most important mathematicians of the 20th century. He was born and brought up in Guildford.
	The university leads the way in technological advances. There is strong expertise in space technology, human biology and medical sciences. We lead the field in many areas. We have one of the most successful business parks in Europe. Situated between two airports, Guildford is ideally placed for those going backwards and forwards to Europe. Many people are based in Guildford to do just that.
	We have a law college that has trained many people to become lawyers. Guildford college has received awards for the quality of its further education and for its vision for teenagers and old people with all skills and all backgrounds.
	More important than the lovely surroundings are the people. We are a diverse community. Guildford is not just full of stockbrokers, which is its image. Many residents are on high incomes, but many others can scarcely afford to live in the area, and they are as an important part of the community as anyone else.
	Guildford was last represented by a Liberal Member in 1906. It has taken us a long time to recover the seat, and we shall not give it up easily. I know that my predecessor, Nick St. Aubyn, is sad to have lost the seat after only one term, and understandably so. Times change, and so do loyalties. However, Nick worked assiduously in the representation of Guildford, and I share many of the concerns that he had, for which he fought on behalf of the constituency. In some respects we differed as to approach, but we were equally committed on issues such as education and the environment.
	Nick cared deeply about human rights and was passionate about his desire for peace in the middle east and the problems faced by refugees. I wish him well for the future, whatever it holds.
	In particular, Mr. St. Aubyn strongly supported his constituents in their opposition to the proposals for a large incinerator that would be the same size as Guildford cathedral, which stands on a hill and dominates the town. The incinerator, too, would dominate the town. It is a source of great worry and concern to the entire constituency. Nick put in much work on behalf of his constituents and I shall certainly be taking up the fight. My constituents expect no less.
	We need more sustainable approaches to environmental matters, and especially waste management. In Cologne, it is illegal to put empty bottles in dustbins. They have to be sorted and taken to the bottle bank. Perhaps we can learn much more from best practice elsewhere in Europe, which our membership of the EU allows us to do. Austria already recycles more than 60 per cent. of its household waste. Germany manages 48 per cent. and France only 12 per cent., but in Britain we manage to recycle only 9 per cent. of our household waste. We have a long way to go, and much to learn from Europe, before we can compete.
	On the doorsteps, I took various questions about Europe. Interestingly, no one disagreed about environmental issues and the fact that we should be looking to Europe to co-ordinate environmental approaches. We will be anticipating and welcoming the electrical and electronic waste directive, which would reduce the number of large items that go into our rubbish. The biodegradable waste directive would promote home and community composting. The packaging directive would require manufacturers to collect and recycle a significant proportion of their packaging. If we could work together in Europe to anticipate these directives rather than wait for enforcement, we would not need a large incinerator in Guildford. We must work with Europe much more closely on these matters, and we need much more Government encouragement for councils, so we can start to become much more sustainable in our approach to waste management.
	Guildford is one of the most important commercial centres in the south of England, and has one of the most successful shopping centres. It also has one of the most vibrant economies. However, my constituents are worried about the threats to their health that an incinerator would bring, particularly to local schools and employees. They have strong concerns about that. We must bear in mind the fact that, wherever one looks in Guildford, one sees the surrounding hills, and wherever one would look in future, such a building would have an unacceptable impact.
	We need to move forward in Guildford. It contributes enormously to business in Europe, and Europe contributes enormously to business in Guildford. I look forward, as its MP, to working in a much stronger area and, I hope, to bringing forward some of the European directives that will really help us. I started my political campaign in Newbury, opposing the mountains of rubbish there. The people of Newbury eventually saw the light and elected a Liberal Democrat council and a Liberal Democrat MP. I hope that Guildford will adopt a similar position and continue to return its Liberal Democrat MP.

Donald Anderson: It is always a pleasure to follow—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry; I called Mr. Doug Henderson.

Doug Henderson: That is not the first time that there has been such a misunderstanding. My right hon. Friend and I have often received mail intended for the other because of the similarity of our names.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on her excellent maiden speech. She said that the people of Guildford were a thoughtful bunch. They obviously have a thoughtful representative to look after their interests for the next four or five years. She also said that Guildford had last been a Liberal seat in 1906, and had returned to the fold at this election. My own seat was a Liberal seat in 1906 but, thankfully, it did not return to that colour this time. She told us all about her wonderful constituency and expressed an interest in cricket. May I say to her that if Yorkshire does not let her go back, she will be very welcome to join me at the Riverside as a guest of County Durham if she ever needs to return to the northern reaches of English cricket?
	This has been a refreshing debate about the bigger pictures involved in the European issue and the way in which the Nice treaty impacts on them. It is highly desirable that we should not miss the big picture by getting embroiled in all the details of the bits and pieces of the Bill. That is not to say that those bits and pieces are unimportant, and I am sure that we shall devote the necessary time to them in Committee. However, I fear that, too often, we get embroiled in the details and the public then fail to recognise what the European Union is about, why it has to change and what its priorities are.
	This is a forum for discussion of policy among the British people, and I do not for a minute complain that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) take a different view from my own. It is important that we have a healthy debate. However, I fear that too many of my colleagues who share my view on Europe have been too quiescent in their support of that view. It is high time that those of us who believe in the European ideal—and who believe that the EU is a crucial part of the future economic, political and social stability of the existing EU and of a much wider area in Europe and in spheres of influence beyond that in parts of the former Soviet Union and north Africa, which must develop to reflect the priorities of the day—acted on our responsibility to make that case more loudly.
	I do not know what the position of Conservative Front-Bench Members is on this issue. I know that it is difficult for them to draw up a resolution on foreign policy at this time, particularly in relation to the European issue. Perhaps it will be easier next week, or by the end of July, or perhaps we shall have to wait until September.

Austin Mitchell: Give it a year.

Doug Henderson: Perhaps we should give them a year; perhaps even longer.
	The Opposition amendment is extremely negative and damaging to Britain's standing and interests in the European Union and to Britain's contribution to building and rebuilding the stability of Europe in the EU. It is not enough to argue about whether we shall have a few more votes here or a bit more influence there, although those matters are important and, as I said, we should examine them in detail in Committee.
	We must consider how we can guarantee the future of the European Union. Some hon. Members may have been fortunate enough to travel to applicant countries such as Slovakia and Latvia; I think that I have probably travelled to them all. If Conservative Members realised what the response of people in those countries would be to their amendment, I do not believe that they would pursue their stated position. If the Conservative party believes in the enlargement of the European Union, it cannot have the luxury of being negative every time a European issue is placed before the House.
	I am not saying that Opposition parties should not be critical, or that they should not be able to dispute with the Government when there are genuine differences. However, we heard from the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) that he was in favour of enlargement but against the Nice treaty. That is a completely untenable position. If the British nation does not endorse the Nice treaty, the treaty will run into serious difficulties.
	Important parts of the Amsterdam treaty had to be carried over; not everything could be agreed there. Numerous issues were agreed, many of which were much more far reaching than the provisions in the Nice treaty. However, it was not possible to achieve everything at Amsterdam. The proposals on the reform of the Commission, among others, were referred on from the Amsterdam negotiations to the Nice negotiations.
	It is also not enough for the Conservatives to say, "Oh, but if the Irish do not accept the treaty, the whole thing will fall." If the treaty falls, we shall be back the next day, and every provision from the Nice treaty will have to be included in any subsequent treaty if we are to make progress on enlargement. Everyone in Europe knows that. The Conservative position is ridiculous. All the nations in the European Union are backing the treaty. Okay, the Irish have rejected it in a referendum, but the Conservatives' position is tantamount to saying that they know better than all the other parties in government throughout the European Union, including other Conservative parties.
	The Conservatives do not recognise that, in countries such as Slovakia and Latvia, change will not take place towards a market economy or a reinforcement of democracy to build on the achievements of 1989 and 1990 unless there is a belief that they can accede to the European Union. Those countries know that there is no future for democracy and a market economy unless they are part of the general regulatory system in Europe. If they do not have the opportunity to join because the Nice treaty or subsequent treaties fall, those countries will not know which way to turn. They will not be allowed to turn towards the European Union, which will have rejected them. The only option will be to look somewhere else. We can be absolutely sure that in Slovakia, for example, members of the previous leadership—which, under Meciar, was strongly totalitarian—will be saying, "Our way was the only way. You can forget the gypsies. We are going back to the system that we had before. That is the only way forward." That would be extremely damaging for the security and stability of Europe.
	Before the Conservatives vote this evening, they should think more clearly about those issues. They should forget the bickering in their party. Surely the stability of Europe and of this country is a much bigger issue than their bickering over the nuances of the extent to which they are for or against Europe. That is my plea to Conservative Members. In most other European countries with which I have had dealings, there is a pretty good consensus about the nation's interests in all these issues, and about the contribution that the nation should make to Europe. However, in this country we are perceived as bickering and nit-picking all the time. It is no surprise that the electorate feels remote and excluded from European issues.
	I believe that we have a responsibility to rebuild that connection so that people understand that their security is achieved not only through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, important as it is, but through membership and development of the European Union. Enlargement is important to that development and to the economic prospects of our nation, as it will give British exporters a better opportunity to penetrate larger markets, although I am not saying that that is the main argument for enlargement.
	The main argument for enlargement is providing stability and security in the European context and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, building on what has been achieved over the past 50 years. We must ensure that we look ahead to the prospect of security and prosperity, and that is the main purpose of the Nice treaty.
	As colleagues have said, there is an awful lot of work to do and many issues to resolve. When the EU has 25 or more members, it will be much more difficult to reach decisions, to operate the Commission, to decide who will provide and who will receive structural funds and to reform agricultural policy, but without the Nice treaty we will not even get near those issues. I hope that the House overwhelmingly supports the Bill.

Mark Francois: I begin by congratulating the new hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) on her maiden speech and thanking her for her kind remarks about her predecessor. It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), who was my predecessor's pair in this place for many years.
	It was Benjamin Disraeli who once said that the greatest opportunity that can be offered to an Englishman is a seat in the House of Commons. Having been a Member for only a few weeks, I am beginning to understand what he meant. I have been immensely impressed by the courtesy and helpfulness of all the staff in this place, and, as an ex-Territorial Army officer, it is particularly welcoming to see the Doorkeepers each and every day. I learned in the Army that those who want to know what is going on ask the senior non-commissioned officers. That seems to be as true here as anywhere else.
	I do not, however, intend to follow the example of a young cadet at Sandhurst several years ago, who was taken aside by a Guards sergeant major to be told that his performance on the drill square had been "distinctly sub-optimal". The sergeant major thrust his pace stick roughly into the ribs of the poor unfortunate and bellowed at him, "There is a complete idiot at the end of this pace stick." The cadet replied, "Not at this end, sergeant major."
	I am delighted and honoured to have been elected to the House as the new Member for Rayleigh. Unlike some hon. Members, I do not claim that my constituency is the most beautiful in the country, but I would humbly nominate it for a place in the top 10. The Rayleigh constituency is named after its largest town, which numbers some 35,000 people and stands roughly in the centre of the seat, just north of Southend.
	The historic town of Rayleigh was first recorded in the Domesday Book as belonging to Sweyne of Essex and it boasts the oldest castle in the county—indeed, one of the oldest in the country. West of Rayleigh lies Hanningfield reservoir, which supplies much of the county of Essex, and a series of picturesque villages that surround it, including East, West and South Hanningfield, Downham, Ramsden Heath and Rettendon as well as the slightly larger community of Runwell.
	North-west of Rayleigh, close to the beautiful River Crouch, lies South Woodham Ferrers, a town of some 20,000 souls, which is fighting a battle with Chelmsford borough council against unwelcome overdevelopment. I pledge to assist the residents of the town in that fight. East of Rayleigh lie a number of popular communities, such as Hockley, which has its ancient royal hunting forest, Hawkwell, Hullbridge and the smaller rural villages of Ashingdon, the Pagelshams, Stambridge and Canewdon, whose 15th century church tower was erected by Henry V in thanksgiving for his rather impressive "away win" at Agincourt.
	Until 1997, the constituency included the town of Rochford, from which it previously took its name, but it was removed in the previous parliamentary boundary review. That has led to some confusion about the revised boundaries. At the general election, a commuter from my constituency got off the train at Rochford station to be met by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), who knows what I am about to say. The commuter spied the blue rosette, smiled, walked forward, stretched out his hand confidently and said, "Don't you worry, Mr. Francois, I have already decided to cast my vote for you."
	It is an honour to follow in the footsteps of my predecessors, Dr. Michael Clark and, before him, Sir Bernard Braine, who was Father of the House. Dr. Michael Clark is a man of principle who served the constituencies of Rochford and Rayleigh with distinction for more than 18 years. In addition to his duties as a constituency MP, which he carried out diligently, he made a career in this place as Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee and a member of the Speaker's Chairmen's Panel.
	While canvassing during the general election, I was genuinely struck by how many people know Dr. Clark personally and by how well they speak of him. I am conscious that I am being asked to step into a very large pair of shoes indeed, although I discovered one person in the constituency who is even better known than Michael Clark—his wife, Valerie. She served in local government in her own right and was a tireless worker for local charities and good causes. For that, she is well loved. Michael and Valerie Clark are an immensely popular couple and everyone in Rayleigh wishes them every success for their new life together down in the west country.
	I am in favour of enlargement of the European Union in principle, but not at any price. I have an affection for the Republic of Ireland; I proposed to my wife Karen while overlooking Galway bay. The next time I visit, I would like to congratulate the people of that country on their sagacious decision to vote against the Nice treaty, and by such a clear margin.
	Whatever the views of any of Member of the House on the European issue, when a country as traditionally pro-European as the Irish Republic votes against a European treaty, that should, at the very least, give us all pause for thought. I confess that I was not quite old enough to vote in the British referendum in 1975, but I believe there was no real practical discussion of a federal Europe or of abandoning our currency.
	The British people were essentially told that they were assenting to a free trade area—a common market—and that is what they endorsed in 1975. The further we move from that position, the greater the risk that we shall exhaust their patience on all things European. We are an historically tolerant people, and we are willing to negotiate and co-operate, but we will not be subsumed by a foreign superstate that ignores our traditions and undermines our laws.
	My father, Reginald Francois, who died when I was a boy, fought in the second world war on the Murmansk convoys so that we could continue to live in a free and democratic county. That point is not lost on his son.
	It was Dr. Johnson who said, "Though we cannot outvote them tonight, we will outargue them." That seems to me to be a reasonable motto for an Opposition, and, from what I have seen so far, we are not doing such a bad job. Over the months ahead, I, too, hope to play some small part in helping to win the argument. I am deeply grateful to the electors of Rayleigh for returning me and giving me that chance.

Donald Anderson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) on his maiden speech. He may not be in the same moderate mould as his predecessor, but I am sure that he speaks for a substantial number of his constituents. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). She said that she was somewhat surprised by her election. I understand that Conservative central office was just as surprised, and sent a note of congratulation to Nick St. Aubyn, whom we miss, as he was a highly popular Member. The hon. Members for Rayleigh and for Guildford have at least learned that their electorates will be far more interested in Rayleigh market and Guildford market than in the Common Market. If they continue to speak for their constituents in that way, they will do well.
	The Nice conference was only seven months ago, but it now seems an age away. We have had a general election since then. We should ask ourselves what lessons we have learned from the election, which some people have claimed was a referendum on Europe. Some hon. Members have asked for a clear perception of where Europe is going and what Europe is for. I do not think that that is possible. In the 1950s, we could talk about the historic ending of the enmity between France and Germany, but now Europe is a far more muddled and complex. We are taking part in a great debate, and the conception of this and many northern European countries is somewhat different from that of other states.
	I urge those who argue that the Nice treaty is a giant step forward to a federalist state to consider who exulted and who was miserable at the outcome of the summit. I can tell the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that, shortly after the Nice treaty was agreed, I was attending the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee when Mr. Moscovici, the French European Minister, was mauled mercilessly by the federalists in the European Parliament. The hon. Gentleman would have noticed the tears of Mr. Prodi. Neither those in the European Parliament nor Mr. Prodi would share the picture of Nice that the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues painted. Few were satisfied. That is the nature of a package deal. None of the great treaties agreed in the past 15 years have been acclaimed—all have been rejected as failures in the days following agreement. The issues addressed—taxation, structural funds, justice and home affairs—are highly politically sensitive and wrangling is inevitable and hardly surprising.
	We should consider carefully how decisions were reached in those all-night sessions. I think that we all agree with the Prime Minister's stricture that something must be done to avoid a repetition of those nights in Nice. Tired politicians make tired decisions. Some leaders did not know the details of what had been decided in the far reaches of the night.
	The outcome is complex, and I am a little wary of the calls for referendums. In a poll conducted in March and April this year, 41 per cent. of European Union citizens said that they did not see, read or hear anything about the Nice summit last December. We must respect the Irish referendum result, but the 18 per cent. who rejected the treaty were an interesting rag bag. We must respect that decision, although the matter will no doubt be revisited. The decision was made in the context of the beef destruction scheme, and leaders of the European Community made some arrogant speeches. Sinn Fein grossly misrepresented the position by arguing that Nice equals NATO. The lesson that we must all learn is that Europe needs to reconnect with its citizenry.
	The key part of the Nice treaty is the historic step towards enlargement. We may have wanted enlargement to come about in a different way, but Nice is the only treaty in town and it is the essential platform for enlargement. It was built on very successfully at Gothenburg in June during the Swedish presidency. We now have a set timetable for the first wave of enlargement in 2004. I was sceptical about artificial time scales because they reduce the pressure on countries such as Poland to reform their agricultural sector. The giant step on enlargement taken at Gothenburg was possible only as a result of what happened at Nice.
	Was Nice essential? According to the Amsterdam treaty, only five new members could join the EU under the old structures. Who would choose those five members? It would have been impossible to decide whether to choose the Czech Republic as against Hungary, or Hungary as against Estonia.
	The Foreign Affairs Committee met the former Foreign Secretary and his colleagues. We read the White Paper at the beginning of last year, and we saw the aims that the British Government had set themselves. No objective observer could deny that those aims were substantially achieved. We came out of the summit having achieved what we set out to achieve. Mr. Prodi has been quoted, and we have heard the Commission's view of who were the winners and who were the leaders. The Financial Times commented that Britain
	"made the biggest strategic gains at the smallest cost. The outcome furthers its long-term aim of becoming an influential member of a wider union, rather than a latecomer to what once seemed a Franco-German club."
	That was achieved as a result of the constructive engagement that the Government have pursued with our European allies.
	As we prepare for enlargement, we must ask ourselves whether we accept that this is an historic opportunity, or whether we should replay the debates that we had before the Nice treaty and the frenzied discussions we had before the election. In a recent speech in Hamburg, Lord Hurd referred to the exaggerations of that time, such as the idea that our European allies are enemies and that we have to win the game against them. I heard an echo of that in the speech by the hon. Member for Rayleigh. We have heard Conservative Members talk about strides being taken towards a wicked, federal superstate or an evil framework. That would isolate us and be bad for Britain. There would be serious repercussions if we were not to press forward.
	Looking ahead, there is a major debate on the future of Europe, with the new intergovernmental conference in 2004. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) made rather a good speech in Berlin, in which he set out his vision. It is not one that I share and, alas, it is not shared by any other serious party in the European Union. That should lend a certain humility to the Conservative Opposition as they approach this debate. They should realise that they are on their own in Europe.
	We shall listen carefully to the debate on the implementation of the Nice treaty to discover whether the Opposition will play their proper role in providing a critical analysis of the treaty, or whether they will exaggerate and produce scare stories, as Lord Hurd suggested. If they pander to an anti-European theme, like latter-day Bourbons they will have forgotten nothing and learned nothing.
	We all need a certain humility in our approach to the European question. I sometimes shudder when I hear our continental colleagues talking airily about European construction, but I reject the view that the referendum was merely about a minor European getting together. Written into the treaty was "ever closer".

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has used up his time.

Simon Thomas: I welcome the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), to his new position. I sincerely hope that he will last longer in this post than he did in his last—although I know that that was not his fault. I also pay tribute to the two maiden speeches that we have heard. Let me say in passing that both reminded me of the diversity that we have in this United Kingdom, as well as the diversity that we have in Europe. We were taken on a gallop around the two constituencies, and the place names that we heard were as foreign to my ears as Pontrhydfendigaid and Penybontrhydybeddau would doubtless be to theirs.
	I am very pleased to be able to speak in support of the Bill, and also to speak for the first time on behalf of the Plaid Cymru-Scottish National party group in describing our joint approach to the Nice treaty. We naturally have a different perspective from that which has mainly been outlined today. Our initial premise is a fundamental belief that the people of Wales and Scotland must decide the future of those countries. Our view may lead some Members to suspect that we are Eurosceptics, but, although we want the future of Wales and Scotland to be decided by the people of those countries, we want to go into Europe with full national status within it.
	We also think it important to issue a plea for the sovereignty of the people of Wales and Scotland when it comes to deciding their future, and a plea for subsidiarity, which has already been mentioned.

Kevin Brennan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Thomas: I am afraid not. The hon. Gentleman has not been present for the whole debate.
	In the context of the alienation that people sense between European institutions and themselves, it is important for us to try to make subsidiarity work, and try to make a relevant relationship work. We in Wales and Scotland feel that strengthening the powers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and strengthening the institutions in those countries—which have an indirect relationship with Europe—is a viable and realistic way of improving relations between people in the United Kingdom and European institutions. I agree with many earlier speakers that those relations have been weakened.
	We do not believe that the Nice treaty is perfect, but we welcome its broad aims. We accept that it is necessary if enlargement is to go ahead, and we are very much in favour of that. The treaty also presents an opportunity for us to restate and reinvigorate our arguments about the reasons for Europe. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made a perceptive speech, although I do not think that we have heard any answers yet: we seem to be stumbling around in the dark looking for them.
	This is a time to re-emphasise that we are building peace and co-operation in Europe. If we want just one example of why we need to do that at European level, we should look to Kyoto. We should consider climate change, and the need for European countries to work together. It was put to the Deputy Prime Minister that we had not yet ratified Kyoto, even though we were complaining that President Bush would not do so. The reason is, of course, that we want to ratify it as a European Union, with all the power, resources and expertise that we have behind us and all our extra ability to speak as a large and important bloc—albeit a large polluting bloc—in the climate change negotiations.
	What we also see in the Nice treaty is a retreat from any vision—I must admit that our party Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales, once had such a vision—of the development of a different kind of Europe: a Europe of smaller regions, nation states, autonomous regions and so forth. The treaty has, in fact, re-emphasised the central role of the nation state. I do not agree with the criticisms of Conservative Members in that regard. We have heard a great deal about the fact that Britain's interests are observed in the treaty, and I have some sympathy with Ministers who say that they set out to secure a certain amount of the UK interest in it—and achieved that, according to their own lights.
	What Nice has not done is review or change the structure. It has rearranged the present structure in order to accommodate more members, rather than creating a new structure that could have been viable for the future.

Chris Bryant: I am not entirely sure whether the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking on behalf of the Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties, would therefore argue in favour of independence for Wales. The parallel view would obviously be held by Scottish nationalists.

Simon Thomas: It is important to put on the record that what the Scottish National party wants is independence in Europe. We have a core, central approach, as the hon. Gentleman would know if—as I hope—he listened to my opening remarks. Our approach is that the people of Wales and Scotland will decide their future. As the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said in regard to federalism, the word is not important, and means different things to different people; what is important is what the people are working for.
	As for relationships, the Nice treaty is rearranging the deckchairs on the supertanker, if not yet the superstate. We are not changing the direction of the supertanker: we are still steaming ahead in Europe, but perhaps not taking enough cognisance of public disquiet and alienation among some European institutions and people within European countries.
	There is, I think, some good news relating to institutional reforms for smaller and emerging nation states in Europe, such as Wales and Scotland. Let us consider parliamentary reform. Latvia and Slovenia will have eight and seven members respectively in the new, reformed Parliament, whereas Wales and Scotland expect to lose members. Anyone who believes strongly in the unionist tradition, whichever side of the House they may represent, should ask how new structures that are emerging in the new Europe could strengthen the UK's voice. If Wales and Scotland had their own voice in Europe, the United Kingdom level would indeed have a stronger voice in European processes.
	A look at what is happening in the Council of Ministers and the changes relating to qualified majority voting is even more revealing. The United Kingdom is currently expected to have around 29 of the 345 votes that will exist on full accession—that is, the accession of 27 countries. I do not count Turkey, because I do not think it will be ready for some time: I certainly hope it will not. On a similar scale, Latvia and Slovenia will have four and seven votes respectively. England on its own could not fall below 27, which is what Spain has now. There is a UK block—consisting of Wales, Scotland and England—amounting to some 38 votes.
	There is a question here for anyone who does not believe that Wales and Scotland should not be fully represented in Europe. What do they want for the United Kingdom? We are, in fact, weakening the United Kingdom by not allowing the full expression of the views of Wales and Scotland in Europe. Moreover—this may be a more important question in the context of today's debate—we are weakening the ability of communities and local people to relate more directly to European institutions.
	No wonder The Economist considered that, when the agreement was eventually reached, it was as hard to understand as it had been to achieve. I do not think that we have changed the position significantly in regard to qualified majority voting. I considered the speech of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) to be misplaced, although it was scintillating intellectually. It failed to recognise current developments in Europe, and it failed to recognise that a new relationship between nation states must be built. We cannot have a veto in the case of issues that are of interest to all of us, such as the environment. We cannot hold out for ever, or we will never proceed to a stronger Europe.
	I am glad that the Committee of the Regions is more recognised in the treaty, and welcome the emphatic requirement that its members must hold elected office in local and regional government. That constitutes acceptance of the political legitimacy of the committee, and its relevance to the citizens of Europe.
	We welcome the common foreign and defence policy, particularly as it relates to the rapid reaction force. We should recognise Europe's failure to deal with what happened in the Balkans, and our need to appeal to America to sort out Europe's problems. I thought that the reason for our establishing a European Community in the first place was our wish to move away from all that. We really need a rapid reaction force to deal with such matters.
	Some of what we are discussing today relates to what must happen after Nice: we must look at the post-Nice scenario. It is essential for us to reform the common agricultural policy, although the treaty does not refer to such reform. The World Trade Organisation must also be involved. There is no clear role for the charter of fundamental rights, which needs to be part of a treaty. We cannot allow the 2004 intergovernmental conference to take place as the Nice process did; we must involve other nations and regions in Europe, and we must involve the people. Nation states on their own will not be enough.

David Cairns: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech in this important and fascinating debate. I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Members for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), whose accomplished maiden speeches forced me rapidly to rewrite my rather poorer effort.
	Although my constituency has been served extremely well by many accomplished individuals, I have the honour to be the first Member for Greenock and Inverclyde to come from Greenock and Inverclyde. I am also the first for almost 50 years not to possess a doctorate, although whether that is an advantage only time will tell.
	My two immediate predecessors in a seat that has changed boundaries often have been Dr. Dickson Mabon and Dr. Norman Godman. Dr. Mabon is remembered for defecting from the Labour party to the Social Democratic party—an event that took place a week after he gave me a prize at school, although the two events may not be linked. I am pleased to report that he has since returned to the Labour party. The seat went back to Labour at the election following his defection, when Dr. Norman Godman was returned to Westminster.
	Dr. Godman served in the House for 18 years. His great hard work and enduring commitment to the peace process in Northern Ireland earned him a great deal of respect and admiration among hon. Members of all parties and—perhaps uniquely—from all sides in Northern Ireland.
	It is appropriate for me to thank the House itself for allowing me to take up my seat. As a former cleric, I was until recently barred for life from membership of the House. I say from the heart that I am extremely grateful that the House saw fit to amend the ancient statute and to allow people in my position to be chosen by the electorate to serve in the House.
	I should also like to say a word of thanks to those who helped to bring about that change. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) for expertly steering through the House a Bill dealing with the most obscure statutes, from the time of the reformation and before. I owe thanks also to Professor Robert Blackburn of King's college, London, who is a leading expert on our constitutional law. He was a great source of knowledge and precedent as well as personal support.
	The Bill was passed with support from hon. Members of all parties, and I am grateful for the commitment of my party, locally and nationally. In particular, I am indebted to the unwavering support of the Labour party's outstanding general secretary, who will be sorely missed when she moves on to pastures new.
	Above all, however, I want to offer my deepest thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). Acting as my constituency Member of Parliament, she did more than anyone to highlight the absurdity of the previous law. With her characteristic persistence, she made sure that the case for reform was unanswerable. If I can serve my constituents half as well as she serves hers, I shall be doing all right.
	At that point, I wanted to leave the subject of the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001, but the presence of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) compels me to mention two outstanding speeches that he made at the Dispatch Box in favour of reform. They were rendered all the more outstanding by the presence beside him of his boss, the shadow Home Secretary. She opposed reform, and sat well within handbagging distance of the hon. Gentleman, who is to be commended for his display of intellectual clarity and courage.
	Greenock and Inverclyde is often described as an urban seat in a rural setting. That about sums it up. The constituency is composed of the towns of Greenock and Gourock, as well as the villages of Inverkip and Wemyss Bay. We are surrounded by some of Scotland's most glorious natural beauty. From atop the Lyle hill in Greenock, one can look down to Gourock's Cardwell bay and watch the ferries head off to Argyll. Across the Clyde, one can see the Gare loch, the Holy loch and Loch Long. Beyond the Roseneath peninsula lies Ben Lomond and the majestic Lomond range. To the west, there is the unmistakeable figure of the Sleeping Warrior of Argyll, and to the south lies the Burns country of Ayrshire.
	Throughout our history the river Clyde has been the life blood of my constituency. We are a maritime people, either seafarers or shipbuilders, and our two most famous sons are connected in that way. One of them, the great inventor and scientist James Watt, captured the power of steam; the other, the pirate Captain Kidd, captured rather a lot of Spanish gold.
	We built the finest ships ever to set sail, but—sadly—those days are long gone, thanks in part to the shortsighted and ignorant policies that failed to see that shipbuilding is a modern industry which, around the world, is growing, not shrinking. Be that as it may, it took us a long while to recover from the devastation of the closure of our shipyards. Our population went into a sort of freefall that is only now showing signs of levelling off.
	However, recover we have, and these days Inverclyde proudly boasts the title of "export capital of Scotland", thanks in the main to our thriving electronics sector. We were recently honoured with a visit by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to mark the 50th anniversary of the arrival of IBM at Greenock. Over the years, that company has been joined by National Semiconductor, FCI and many others.
	The Greenock and Inverclyde constituency relies on exports, so Europe matters to us. We have done well out of our membership of the European Community. I therefore welcome this Bill, which paves the way for important new markets to open up for us, and the greater prosperity that they will bring.
	Despite the best efforts of some, the issue of Europe did not figure prominently during the recent general election, which in some ways was a shame. In my constituency, it arose as an issue only once during our campaign. I was leafleting outside the Oak Mall shopping centre in Greenock when I was joined by my Conservative opponent. He was carrying a large pile of "Save the Pound" leaflets. He proceeded to brandish them above his head, calling out "Save the pound, save the pound." To my considerable consternation, he was quickly mobbed by people keen to get their hands on his leaflets. However, it transpired—to my relief—that the canny shoppers of Greenock and Inverclyde thought that they were being offered a "pound off" coupon, and were duly horrified once they realised the true nature of what they were being handed.
	A maiden speech is no place for the minutiae of the treaty of Nice, but I hope that it is not too glib a point to make that, in all the entirely necessary and detailed examination of qualified majority voting and the precise composition of the European Parliament, we can hold on to the great vision of a Europe that is both prosperous and at peace. That vision crosses party lines—or it used to—and the goal has been striven for by great parliamentarians, such as Healey and Heath, Grimmond and Ewing.
	I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that, even with all its compromises, frustrations and Euro-fudge, the Nice treaty not only keeps alive the great European vision but extends it to all those nations who wish to share in our union. As such, it represents a wonderful opportunity to extend prosperity and enhance democracy and freedom. It is a great prize, and one that I wholeheartedly endorse.

John Bercow: There is for me a certain piquancy in following the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns). It was a model of its kind—witty, incisive and thought provoking—and I congratulate him warmly on it. He told us, with justifiable pride and no little eloquence, about his constituency and its beauties, about his predecessors and their strengths, and about the principles and values that will inform what I hope will be the many more distinguished contributions that he will make, long into the future.
	When I looked at the Bill that became the House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001, it seemed eminently sensible. There was no good reason to deny the hon. Gentleman his legitimate entitlement to sit in this House, if he were able—as he was—to secure the support of the people of his constituency. I wish him well here, and I hope that from time to time we might break bread together.
	We have also heard two other outstanding maiden contributions in the course of the debate. I have not met the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and I doubt that we will agree about much, but she made a measured, sincere and thoughtful contribution. She is obviously a dedicated and committed person who understands the interests of her constituents. On a personal note, I especially appreciated the generosity and appropriateness of her tribute to my former hon. Friend, Nick St. Aubyn, who was indeed an assiduous and effective representative of his constituents. I trust that she will be, and I wish her success.
	I hope that neither of the hon. Members to whom I have just referred will think the less of me or take offence if I say that above all it is a pleasure for me this evening to be able to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). He and I have known each other for 16 years. I knew that he would eventually get into this place and it is to his enduring credit that he has now done so. He delivered a brilliant maiden speech—eloquent, authoritative, passionate and sincere. Rarely is it that one hears a maiden speech delivered with the self-assurance that he brought to bear.
	I trust that my hon. Friend will forgive me one other banal but, I hope, valid observation. I have always been supremely untroubled by my 5 ft 6¼ in. It has never bothered me in the remotest instance. Nevertheless, it is no bad thing to have a little company and he is probably the only Member of this House, certainly on the Conservative Benches, who is even more vertically challenged than I am. Size is not everything—I know that he will immediately concur with that observation—and he has enormous principle, reserves of energy and outstanding dedication. He will be a brilliant representative of the people of Rayleigh and a formidable addition to these Benches.
	In my judgment, the Foreign Secretary was unwise to invoke the result of the general election on 7 June as a vindication of Europhilia in general or the contents of the Nice treaty in particular. If we are honest with each other about the significance of issues during the general election campaign, all the evidence shows—and the Prime Minister himself, in his understandable caution about the euro, has demonstrated that he recognises—that the body of opinion in the country is broadly sceptical about European integration and hostile to British entry to the euro. It is fair for me to say, as a Conservative representative, that the British people did not disagree with the Conservative party's position on the euro or on Europe: they simply did not think that it was top of their concerns. It was not that salient.
	The Government were successful in relegating Europe down the list of political issues, not least by the offer of a referendum. Whatever we thought about the likely terms of the question in the referendum or the disproportionate advantage that the forces of europhilia would enjoy by virtue of the legislation on the funding of referendum campaigns, the public did not want to determine the election on that basis. They talked about health, education, crime and transport. However, we would be unwise to ignore the significance of Europe as an issue.
	I shall focus on one aspect of Europe that is notably absent from the treaty of Nice, and that is subsidiarity, to which several hon. Members have already animadverted today. The famous, or perhaps I should say infamous, article 3b of the Maastricht treaty defined subsidiarity. What did it say? It said:
	"In areas which do not fall within its exclusive competence, the Community shall take action, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community."
	That was, of course, a model of the linguistic clarity that we have come to expect from our rulers in the European Union. It was widely and popularly supposed to signify an intention to ensure that decisions were taken at the lowest possible level. In fact, it meant nothing of the kind. It pre-supposed, as it continues to pre-suppose, the existence of a central authority that will decide in its wisdom what crumbs from the table it is prepared to flick in the direction of the autonomy of nation states. The reality is, notwithstanding the support of that principle and the inclusion of article 3b in the treaty of Maastricht, not a single directive or regulation has subsequently been repealed as a direct consequence of the inclusion of that article.
	The debate moved on to the treaty of Amsterdam. The Government boldly asserted that they could do much better. As a result of the efforts of the former Foreign Secretary and his Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), from whom we heard earlier, a protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality was included in the treaty of Amsterdam, which stated:
	"the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article F4 of the Treaty on European Union, according to which the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to attain its objectives and carry through its policies."
	If one strips away the verbiage of the protocol, what emerges with crystal clarity is that that protocol was not intended to divert attention from the continued pursuit of an ever greater arrogation of powers to the European Union. That arrogation of powers, in the case of nation states, will be from institutions that we elect and can remove to institutions that we do not elect and cannot remove.
	Since 1992, we have seen a constant, remorseless and inexorable ratchet of European integration. Between 1992 and 1997, after the passage of Maastricht, there have been 20,564 directives, regulations and decisions from the European Union that impact on this country, and since 1998, and the passage of the treaty of Amsterdam—for which many, but unjustified claims were made—a further 4,995 such directives, regulations and decisions have impacted on this country. That process cannot continue indefinitely without the most massive protest and resentment on the part of the people of the United Kingdom.
	The power of self-government, the right to hire and fire our rulers, and the capacity freely to chart our own destiny as an independent nation are the inalienable birthrights of every citizen. They should not be traded in, now or at any time, for a mess of pottage, otherwise known as a back-row seat at a show called the heart of Europe. That ratchet must be arrested and reversed, because too much power has been taken from too many people over too long a period. That is wrong in itself, it is undemocratic and it diverts attention from the proper priorities of the European Union: to reform agriculture and fisheries, to cut fraud and to re-establish the primacy in independent nation states of national self-government. 7.9 pm

Alan Simpson: I wish to add my own warm tribute to the three hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches tonight and to take up some of the points that they made. It was wonderful to hear the warmth and affection that they all have for their constituencies and the generosity with which they described their predecessors. However, their most important contributions were their visions for the future of Europe.
	The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) referred to diversity, and the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) spoke of respect for the Irish. I am relieved that when he conducted his own referendum proposal over the bay of Galway, he did not meet with the same "No" from his wife that the Irish population gave to their Government. Finally, I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) is here and is comfortable about representing both Church and state in the House. However, I am sure that there will be times when he will ask himself who exactly was responsible for saving his soul for Parliament.
	The issue about the European democratic agenda—the vision to which my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde referred—is the fundamental test of what we are seeking to sign up to. The tragedy is that although I share that vision and want to sign up to that expanded vision of a pluralist, inclusive Europe that is at peace with itself, nothing in the treaty of Nice will deliver that.
	I will not be supporting the Conservative amendment, because I have never signed up to the Conservative vision of Europe, which I believe to be underpinned by presumptions about an economic free-for-all against a backcloth of social insecurity in a Europe never at ease with itself. That is not the Europe that I want to construct, but the one that I want to construct will be fatally flawed if it is pursued according to the Nice treaty.
	I want to address three key failings about which we must be honest tonight and as we take the arguments around the country. First, the process of economic decision making is fatally compromised in the proposals enshrined in the Nice treaty. Secondly, we must consider the economic implications of political expansion. Thirdly, we must accept the real cost that we will have to pay for the democratic contraction that will follow from the treaty.
	I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was robust in his dismissal of the comments of Romano Prodi following the Irish referendum. A country has the right to hold a referendum, and the outcome must be respected. It is arrogant and outrageous to say, "We don't like the outcome. The public had their say; we had better get rid of the public and find a better one." If the Irish do not endorse the Nice treaty, it will not and cannot proceed. We will be forced to think in wider terms about the basis on which we wish to build a broader and inclusive Europe. I want us to address that; I do not want to retreat from it.
	One of the issues confronting the House is why we will not offer a referendum on the same treaty. We have already embraced the notion of referendums—we held them on the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and we are considering holding one on regional assemblies. There is even a referendum in my constituency about whether people want a parish council. Citizens' organisations that gather outside every meeting of the European elite do so to challenge it fundamentally because it presumes to have the right to make decisions from which citizens are excluded. We cut ourselves off at our peril from our lines of democratic accountability to the public who put us here. I would not support the Bill in its final stages unless a condition were included that its final form is subject to the test of a referendum requiring the approval of the British public.
	On 25 June, Agence France Presse produced a wonderful report on the concluding negotiations inside the unified Germany about the fiscal transfers between east and west. It was well reported in the Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph but not reported much elsewhere. It is important for this debate because the issues that almost tore apart the German debate about the cost of unification are a microcosm of those that we will have to address if we are serious about an extended and inclusive Europe.
	Following German unification, the West Germans acknowledged that the wealth gap between east and west was unbridgeable. It was no partnership of equals—it was a unification of the soul. That unification had a price that the Germans, to their enduring credit, were willing to pay. We ought to be honest about that price. It was a self-imposed tax surcharge of 7.5 per cent.—7.5p in the pound went on personal and corporate income tax. In 1997, it was revised to 5.5 per cent.
	The report at the end of June was significant because the richest states in Germany—Bavaria, Baden- Wurttemberg and Hesse—challenged that tax because they had grown tired of the costs of carrying the poor. They felt that it was unfair for the burden of that solidarity tax to fall on the rich, and wanted it renegotiated. The German constitutional court made a decision that shifted the burden away from those states in favour of a greater contribution by the German Government as a whole.
	Let us be clear about the figures; they are very simple. Over the next 19 years, Germany has agreed to transfer a further £100 billion from west to east to pay for the solidarity and inclusion that is so precious to it. The total bill will come to £250 billion—the price of unification between rich and poor.
	That is important because the gross domestic product per capita of the former East Germany is almost exactly the same as that of people in the Czech Republic, which is in the first wave of would-be entrants into the expanded Europe. The Czech Republic is twice—in some cases three times—as wealthy as many of the other applicant countries that we wish to join the EU. Yet they are all seeking entry without the rest of us signing up to a single penny of fiscal transfer that remotely equates to the scale of support and transfers made from West to East Germany as the price of sustainable unification.
	We kid ourselves if we believe that a sustainable, stable, broader European economy and society can be underpinned without one of two things happening. There must be huge fiscal transfers from the rich to the poor to make life viable in the poorer parts. If not, we will go back 200 years to a Europe driven by a view of monetarism based on the gold standard in which people moved in pursuit of cash. Are we prepared for the 105 million people in the entrant states who want to have the right to the same sort of economic prosperity that we wish to share? No, we are not even talking about that.
	My final point is about democratic loss. There was a huge debate in the European Union following the Uruguay round of negotiations with the World Trade Organisation. European Commissioners were hacked off because they thought that they had the right to negotiate on our behalf and that individual nation states had no right to a say. The European Court of Justice ruled that those nations had the right to negotiate over trade in goods but that trade in commercial services, including health and education, is subject to universal agreement among the member states.
	The transfer from unanimity obligations to majority voting will remove that right first from member states and then from the Council of Ministers and give it to the European Commissioners. They are the architects of a new European autocracy. They are the agents of corporate control, which will take Europe into a corporate feudalism, in which we will all act—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.

Mark Hoban: I congratulate the hon. Members who have made their maiden speech in this debate. I refer in particular to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns)—as a veteran of many sermons, I commend him to go back to his former colleagues and tell them about the merits of the 10-minute rule from which we have benefited tonight.
	Before I address the Bill before us, let me pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Peter Lloyd. He served Fareham as its Member of Parliament for more than 22 years. He is widely respected in the constituency for his decency and his unceasing diligence on behalf of his constituents. At a time when politicians are only too eager to criticise this Department or that agency in the media to raise their own profiles, Sir Peter preferred his work for his constituents to speak for itself rather than use it to promote himself.
	In the House, in spite of serving as a Whip, Peter demonstrated independence of spirit. In the previous Parliament, following his interest in home affairs—which developed when he was a Minister of State at the Home Office—he was very involved in the rehabilitation of young offenders and, just before Dissolution, completed a report on the work of prison visitors—subjects of great importance in the justice system that perhaps rub against the grain of current concerns.
	Peter told me that, when he was a new Member in 1979, he was admonished for being far too much of a Eurosceptic—a caution that those of us newly elected to sit on the Conservative Benches are unlikely to receive as we progress in our careers.
	Peter and his wife, Hilary, have given my wife and me tremendous support. They have offered wise counsel based on great experience, and their advice has been readily accepted by us both. I echo the words of so many people in the House and in the constituency when I say that he is a hard act to follow.
	I remind the House of another Member of Parliament for Fareham, Arthur Lee—Lord Lee of Fareham—who gave Chequers to the nation. Sadly, he did not leave his successors in Fareham a country house to retire to at the weekends. Indeed, the only house in the constituency that bears his name is a public house.
	I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying a little about my constituency. Fareham sits between Portsmouth and Southampton on the south Hampshire coast. Part of its eastern boundary is Portsmouth harbour and to the west are the Solent and the Hamble. In his guide to the buildings of England, Pevsner highlights the impact that its location has had on Fareham. He said:
	"Senior naval officers found it favourable for retirement in Georgian times."
	That tradition remains strong today.
	Pevsner also said:
	"Fareham possesses a High Street which is largely unspoiled and one of the best country town streets in the South of England."
	High street is not the constituency's only architectural gem. There is a fine castle in Portchester that dates back to Roman times, when it was built to protect the coast from invasion by the Saxons. Palmerston, another MP who represented a seat in south Hampshire, built fortifications on Portsdown hill above Fareham to protect us from the French. From Portsdown hill today, one can see the great naval base of Portsmouth that continues to protect our nation.
	The constituency is formed of strong, local communities each with its own very clear identity. I have mentioned one already, Portchester, but there are others too, including Titchfield, Warsash and Fareham itself.
	The constituency has grown rapidly in recent years. The west of the constituency, where I have the pleasure of living, once consisted of strawberry fields and nurseries but it is now home to about a third of my constituents. Rapid development here and on the other side of the motorway in Whiteley, part of which is also in my constituency, has caused great strains on the local infrastructure. Roads are congested and children cannot attend the nearest school. The Government's policy of imposing housing quotas on this area is making the situation worse, as is their demand that the density of new housing developments should be increased. More housing means more car journeys, more children for already overcrowded schools and fewer green fields. This madness cannot be allowed to continue.
	Fareham has a diverse business base. Although many of the strawberry fields and nurseries have been built on, there is still a thriving horticulture industry. It is a great pleasure when in the constituency to buy strawberries picked in the fields around Titchfield. However, Fareham also acts as host to high-tech businesses, particularly in the information technology and defence sectors.
	Although it is outside my constituency, many of my constituents work for Vosper Thornycroft, which has an excellent reputation for building warships. It is currently bidding to build a type 45 destroyer alongside BAE Systems Marine so that the work is shared between the two companies. However, BAE Systems Marine has also submitted a unsolicited bid to build the entire programme and, if successful, that would create a monopoly. I therefore ask the Government to think very carefully about accepting that bid, because I cannot believe that it is right for there to be a monopoly supplier of destroyers to the Royal Navy. No competition would mean poor value for money for taxpayers.
	Local businesses also benefit from good internet connection links because Fareham hosts the Merlin teleport, which through a satellite links it and the rest of Britain with the world in fractions of a second.
	With such an array of businesses, it is not surprising that Fareham enjoys a low rate of unemployment, making recruitment an issue for both business and the vital public services that we need to serve such a growing constituency.
	I am very honoured to have been elected to represent Fareham and I hope that it continues its long tradition of returning Conservative Members of Parliament for a long time to come.
	During the election campaign, many of my constituents expressed concern about the development of the European Union. They see it taking more and more powers away from national Governments, moving away from being simply a common market for goods and services. They sense that is becoming distant and remote and beyond their control. However, their concern does not mean that they are insular or little Englanders. For many, their service in the Navy means that their horizons are not limited to Europe, let alone to the United Kingdom's shores. They have a global and international perspective on life.
	My constituents do not see Britain's role as simply being part of an increasingly introspective and insular European Union, but they see Britain as part of a network of nations, using our historical links and current trading patterns as a guide to how we should develop our relations with other nation states in the future. I share their perspective and their concerns.
	There is little in the treaty of Nice to allay my constituents' fears. The treaty is said to be about enlargement and, indeed, it claims to make certain provisions about that, but it fails to tackle key issues such as reform of the common agricultural policy. However, the treaty is principally about deepening the European Union. It extends qualified majority voting to many more articles of the treaty and it facilitates easier co-operation between member states in certain areas of policy. The deepening of the European Union rather than enlargement causes my constituents most concern. They support the enlargement of the EU, which is long overdue, but they object to the deepening of the EU.
	The concern about deepening is not restricted to the people of this country. The referendum in Ireland demonstrated that; the treaty was rejected because the development of the EU has gone too far. Let us not forget either the Danish referendum. In spite of a concerted campaign by the business and political establishment, the Danish people stood up and said no to a single currency.
	If the European Union is to enjoy the support of the people of its members states, it must develop in line with their aspirations. The Commission and member states cannot simply dismiss the result of the Irish referendum and ask the Irish people to vote time and time again until they get the right answer. That approach will cause dissent and alienation and undermine the EU. The demonstrations that we saw at Gothenburg could become the norm if the EU continues to develop at a faster pace than is acceptable to its people. Let us develop the EU in line with the aspirations of its people, who elect us, rather than in line with the aspirations of the political elite who seem to rule in Brussels.

Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) on his maiden speech, and Fareham on its new representative, because he made a powerful invocation of the constituency's needs and problems. A debate that I expected to be a Cook's tour of Europe has turned out, in five maiden speeches, to be a very charming Cook's tour of several interesting constituencies in this country. I congratulate all who made those excellent speeches. It has been a pleasure to sit here and listen to them.
	As I sat here, I mused about whether it would be possible for me to share the naive but utterly enduring enthusiasm for Europe that characterises my party. I wondered whether my inability to do so might be the barrier between me and the long overdue promotion that I have been waiting for. As I sat by the telephone in the days after the election, waiting for the call from Downing street, I thought that when the Prime Minister offered me the post that I most coveted—Parliamentary Under- Secretary in the ministry of fisheries—I would in gratitude issue a statement saying, "Tony, perhaps the Nice treaty isn't so bad after all." I felt that it would be a bold move to put myself in line with the mood of the party. I have to tell the House that the call did not come, and this is a lousy treaty. It is time to tell the truth and to abandon the hopes of promotion which have kept me going until now. I am even wearing a Euro-tie because I thought that I had better wear something cheap and trashy to celebrate my conversion.
	It is infuriating that a messy treaty is being rushed through the House at such speed. We do not even have a copy of the treaty on European Union as it will read when fully amended, although I asked for one at the end of the previous Session and the then Foreign Secretary refused. We cannot tell what shape that treaty will take once the amendments arising from the Nice treaty have been made. I have been trying to find out. I have here my copy of the treaty of Amsterdam, which consolidates the amended treaties to date.
	Article 1 of the Nice treaty replaces article 7 of the treaty on European Union. I looked it up in the Amsterdam treaty and found that article 6 on simplification says:
	"Article 7 shall be repealed."
	I then turned to the tables of equivalences referred to in article 12 of the Amsterdam treaty, which is the treaty that we are really debating. We are discussing a one-clause Bill and a 16-clause treaty, but that involves many other matters.
	The table of equivalences told me that article 7 is article F.1, not F.0. I turned to article F.1 and found that it is a provision for penalising EU states that have been naughty, such as Austria. The new paragraph suspends the states' voting rights on the Council, but it does not tell us which Council. Is it the European Council or the Council of Ministers? I ended up as puzzled as I began.
	We are going to have to debate the Bill quickly, finalising its passage next week, without having a full copy of the amended treaty or being able to understand it. Each article of the Nice treaty is a huge container packed with clauses that make amendments. Article 1 amends 23 articles in earlier treaties. It cannot be possible even to understand it. This is a messy way of implementing a messy treaty arrived at by messy procedures.
	European Council meetings are rather like the "Big Brother" house in reverse. Everyone is crammed together in the big Europe house and kept up, well fed, all night. There is a bidding frenzy because they have all come along with demands and offers, and they are pressured by the Commission into botching something together. As the Prime Minister said, it is a stupid way to make decisions. It is infuriating for him because he has a managerial mind and this is chaos.
	The small states rebel against the pressure—I note that they were led in this case by Belgium and Portugal—and say, "We are not having this. We demand more." They are told to think again. People are voted out of the "Big Brother" house. By contrast, they are forced to stay in the big Europe house and accept whatever emerges from the shambles. At the end, whatever has been agreed is written up, and then rewritten over several weeks, to tell the countries what they should have agreed if they had been compos mentis at the time, instead of exhausted and half-asleep. It is folly. We cannot, in that fashion, build a workable democratic structure or a pristine constitution that people will accept. We could not even build a garden shed in that fashion, let alone a European superstructure.
	Those methods are also inherently undemocratic. People do not understand them. The small states are steamrollered and bullied by the bigger states. It is a pointless and messy procedure. Each time pressure is applied, less is gained. Amsterdam is pathetic compared with previous treaties, and the Nice treaty is pathetic compared with Amsterdam. The next agreement will be made in 2004.
	The whole process, including the Nice treaty, is based on a lie. Europe is a culture of half-truths that have corrupted our politics. Damage has to be portrayed as gain; failure has to be portrayed as success, and at every Council meeting everyone is a winner. They all go back to their countries saying, "Game, set and match to us." It cannot all be true.
	The biggest half-truth is this treaty. We have been told several times tonight, as we are continually being told by the Commission and everyone else concerned, that this process is about enlargement, but it is not. It is about strengthening the central institutions and weakening the nation states and the power and control of Parliament. We have rushed through the process in the hope of facilitating enlargement, and we have surrendered vetoes that we should never have given up. They are negotiating counters that we should not abandon. They would enable us to stop this rush towards enhanced co-operation, in which the richer states will get together to dominate and shape Europe according to their wishes. That is unsatisfactory to every participant; it is incomprehensible to the public; and it has nothing to do with enlargement.
	Enlargement comprises two key issues. The first is the common agricultural policy, which is unreformed. We cannot apply it to Poland, for example, because Poland has more farmers than the rest of Europe combined. How can Poland be included in the CAP without the scheme going bankrupt? Yet how can it be deprived of the CAP's benefits and still be a full member?
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, nothing has been decided about financing. His point about Germany was very telling. To unite Germany, so that kith and kin could come together, will cost £250 billion by 2004. That is the cost of including in the EU the 15 million people in east Germany. The new entrants have seven times that number of people—105 million. Who will pay for the help and support that those countries will need to sustain their fledging democracies?
	Germany is already restive about paying for Europe. We too pay over the odds. Our net contribution is £4 billion, which is the second highest after Germany's. No one else will increase their contribution. Nothing has been decided. Instead, we are fiddling with structures and with the powers of the Commission and the Council of Ministers. That, we are told, is all that will be done to prepare for enlargement.
	We are now being asked to bully Ireland, but Denmark was not bullied. We held up proceedings on the Bill on Maastricht for some time while a deal was worked out with the Danes. The Irish, however, have to lump it and vote again. The process is a shambles and the outcome is a treaty that I cannot support. This mess has nothing to do with enlargement, which I support. We are living in a Europe that no one particularly wants, according to processes that no one understands and by methods that have been rejected as totally unacceptable by the people in the only country which has consulted its people.

Alan Reid: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), the hon. Members for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), and my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), on their excellent speeches. I will do my best to live up to the high standards that they have set.
	I should also like to thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde for pointing out the magnificent scenery in my constituency of Argyll and Bute. I shall return the compliment by pointing out that a magnificent view in my constituency is the one from Innellan across the firth of Clyde to the beautiful hills in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, behind Inverkip.
	I wish to pay tribute to my predecessor, Ray Michie, who represented Argyll and Bute in Parliament for 14 years and was held in tremendous regard by her constituents. That was evident when I went from doorstep to doorstep during the election; the high regard in which she was held came across loud and clear. Time and again, I was told that if I was successful in being elected to Parliament, I would have a hard act to follow. I met person after person whose case Ray had taken up successfully. To her credit, she has a long list of successful campaigns—for a new hospital, road improvements and new bridges. She was also a robust defender of the Gaelic culture in Argyll—a campaign that I, too, shall champion.
	Argyll and Bute is a huge constituency, full of magnificent scenery. I have no doubt that it is the most beautiful in the United Kingdom. It stretches from the Mull of Kintyre in the south to the shores of Loch Linnhe in the north, a distance of almost 100 miles. It extends from the firth of Clyde in the east to the Atlantic coast in the west, and includes the island of Bute in the firth of Clyde, as well as many islands of the inner Hebrides; and there is a total of 26 inhabited islands.
	Many hon. Members have told me that they have spent enjoyable holidays in Argyll and Bute, and I would recommend it to anyone who has not been; the scenery is unrivalled. Whether Members want an activity holiday—climbing, sailing or walking—or to relax on one of the many unspoilt golden beaches, it is an unbeatable holiday destination. A variety of holidays can be enjoyed there—for example, at the traditional seaside resorts of Dunoon and Rothesay on the Clyde coast. From those resorts, people can take a cruise through the magnificent waterway of the Kyles of Bute. Part of the Cowal peninsula in Argyll will soon become part of Scotland's first national park, to which Dunoon will be the gateway. Inveraray, with its beautiful picture postcard white buildings, is an early example of town planning. Many tourists have their photo taken outside the historic jail, although that was one photo opportunity that I was advised to avoid at the start of the campaign.
	The long drive to Campbeltown and the Mull of Kintyre is well worth it for the magnificent scenery on the way. In the north of the constituency is the magnificent seaport of Oban, with its splendid harbour; it is a base for touring the islands, which are well worth a visit. There is no time to list them all tonight, but they include Islay and Jura, which are world famous for their many whisky distilleries. However, the local economy is in difficulties; the Chancellor could help, and make himself popular, by reducing the duty on whisky and ending the unfair tax regime that discriminates against spirits in favour of imported wines.
	The islands of Tiree and Coll are famous for their miles of golden sandy beaches. Indeed, Tiree gets more sunshine than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and is the perfect place for relaxing on a sunny, golden, unspoilt and empty beach. Iona has an historic abbey and is the burial place of many kings of Scotland.
	Despite all its beauty, Argyll and Bute, like all rural communities, has suffered economic hardship in recent years. Because of the vast size of my constituency and the sparsity of its population, many rural economic problems that affect other areas are magnified. Thankfully, there have been no cases of foot and mouth in my constituency; nevertheless, the knock-on effects have been damaging for both the tourism and farming industries. We need Government policies that will help the traditional rural industries of farming, fishing and forestry, promote tourism and encourage new investment.
	The highlands were largely depopulated by the clearances in earlier centuries. If the free market is allowed to operate without Government intervention, there will be further depopulation; I do not believe that there is a single hon. Member who thinks it is beneficial to have such depopulation and more population movement to the south-east of England. Unemployment in the remote Kintyre peninsula and on many of the islands is a cause for concern. Europe has been a tremendous help, both for the markets that it has provided and the great financial assistance brought about by objective 1 status. Europe appreciates the difficulties of running a business and delivering services in remote islands. Indeed, it has done so to a much greater extent than many British Governments. Not joining the euro at the outset has been a financial disaster for many businesses in Argyll and Bute.
	Our farmers, fishermen and tourism industry must sell to other Europeans and they are finding it difficult to compete at the present exchange rate. Prawn fishermen sell much of their product abroad, to countries like Spain and Italy, but are finding it hard to compete against fishermen in those countries because of the high rate of the pound against the euro. European tourists continually complain about our high prices. Joining the euro at a favourable exchange rate is essential if businesses in the highlands and islands of Scotland are to avoid financial disaster. I therefore urge the Government to hold a referendum at the earliest possible opportunity.
	As I have said, Europe has invested much in the highlands and islands. We have recently succeeded in attracting a Danish wind turbine factory to Kintyre. That is an exciting new technology and an industry of the future, but sadly, I must relate that all the other agencies involved in the project are unanimous in their view that the Ministry of Defence, on whose former Machrihanish base the factory will be built, has been most unhelpful. I urge the Ministry to realise that it has social responsibilities when it closes bases in remote rural areas; extracting every last drop of public money from other Government agencies that are trying to bring jobs to a remote peninsula is not an achievement of which to be proud.
	St. Columba sailed from Ireland to Iona 1,400 years ago and brought Christianity to Argyll. In those days, people and goods regularly travelled back and forth between Argyll and Ulster. Today, sadly, there is no direct link. To travel the eight miles from the Mull of Kintyre to County Antrim involves no fewer than three ferry journeys and miles of driving. A ferry link is essential; it would mean that Kintyre would become part of a European highway, and would not be a cul-de-sac. Efforts to reinstate the ferry link from Campbeltown to Ballycastle must therefore succeed. There is a dire situation in Argyll and Bute; Government assistance is needed and joining the euro is essential.

Gordon Marsden: I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) on an excellent maiden speech. Indeed, it is one of a quintet of excellent maiden speeches that we have heard this evening. I was especially pleased that history and geography were strongly to the fore in all areas of those speeches. When the five speakers finally leave the House, they will all have excellent third-age careers as authors of guidebooks and gazetteers.
	I make no apology for focusing on EU enlargement and the implications of the Nice treaty. Despite what has been said tonight, enlargement is enshrined in the protocol of the treaty. With Milosevic in court at The Hague today, we should be starkly reminded of the need to embed the present fragile stability in eastern and central Europe in the EU. Enlargement is a key part of that process, but it will work properly only with the structural reforms proposed at Nice.
	In his article today in The Daily Telegraph, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to a 30-year link with Jan Kavan, whom he met in 1969 when they were both students. I do not have the same length of pedigree, but my interest and involvement in eastern Europe likewise goes back to human rights battles of student days. In the late 1970s, when I was a postgraduate at London university, I got involved in the east European solidarity campaign and met Jan Kavan. Subsequently, I saw the impact of the testimony of many of the dissidents at the hearings into Carter's human rights policies in Washington. As co-chairman of the future of Europe trust in this place, over the past three and a half years I have been able to meet many politicians from central and eastern Europe, and to hear about their concerns and their vital need for the enlargement process.
	Historically, the United Kingdom has had a strong commitment to enlargement and to the countries of central and eastern Europe. That commitment has been shared by both major parties in the House. I am happy to pay tribute to the support that Mr. Major and his Foreign Office team gave in the early days to that process. It is sad, therefore, that the Conservatives now seem to want to jeopardise the process by unpicking Nice, as the Opposition amendment proposes.
	The treaty of Nice is not perfect. Some have said that it is a minimalist settlement, some have said that it goes too far, and the European Parliament has expressed doubt. That probably means that the treaty is just about right. The process is one of give and take, and it is important that we understand that. However, it is also crucial to establish new institutional and decision-making arrangements to prepare the European Union for 27 members. That has to be done.
	The Opposition have tried to twist the issue by claiming that, technically, accession does not require a treaty. That is at best disingenuous and naive, and at worst, if persisted with, would endanger the process and momentum. With 26 or 27 EU members, we simply cannot make up structures as we go along. I agreed wholeheartedly with the right hon. and learned Member for North–East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, when he said recently that the process is fundamental. Importantly also, the applicant countries believe that to be true.
	The interests of applicant countries in joining an enlarged EU cannot be wholly divorced from their interests in an enlarged NATO. The amended article 25 of the treaty of Nice provides for an enhanced role for the EU Political and Security Committee. That is right and just. The status of the European security and defence force in relation to NATO is also dealt with in annexe 6 to the presidency conclusions from the Council. The Political and Security Committee will liaise with NATO and is not a threat to it. What was agreed at Nice will preserve the character of NATO and the front-line position of both applicant countries and existing members.
	That balance is important because there is a need to respect Russian sensitivities, especially in the Baltic concerning Kaliningrad. At the same time, Romania and other states that wish to join the EU must not be blocked, particularly if they are not likely to be in the first wave of accession.
	There are key questions to be answered about expansion, and they are hard ones. They must not just be ignored in a process of good will and positive rhetoric. Last week, in the Financial Times, Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, rightly drew attention to such key questions when he said that the EU should insist that applicants meet the highest standards of human rights and civil society, and that enlargement will leave those outside the Union at a disadvantage. New members, he said, will have to impose visa requirements on their eastern neighbours and the EU cannot ignore developments in regions which become unstable or suffer economic crises that will directly affect the Union through migration, for example. Human rights and the building up of civil societies are key elements of the chapters to be completed, but so are those other knotty issues.
	I want to give two examples of the issues that we need to address. There was considerable tension between Hungary and Romania during the 20th century over the issue of Transylvania. That is beginning to be resolved through much better relations between those countries, and must not be jeopardised by a disregard for transitional arrangements for migration and visas. The issue of migration is also likely to arise between Poland and Ukraine, as Poland is to enter the EU early and Ukraine's entry is a very long way off.
	The Nice treaty is not set in stone; nor should we see it as such. However, it is crucial to embed the applicant states in the process. That is why the Opposition's amendment risks missing the boat. In his speech in Warsaw in October, the Prime Minister rightly recognised the other side of the coin. If we do not embed applicant countries in the EU, we shall face all the issues and concerns over migration and asylum that have so preoccupied debate in this country over the past 12 months.
	Our commitment, NATO's achievements in Kosovo and our difficult engagement in Macedonia are possible only because they have been underpinned by logistical, diplomatic and other support and consensus among applicant countries such as Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and the Czech Republic, many of which took considerable domestic risks in moving away from long-standing doubts, ethnic hostilities and shibboleths. We should recognise that, not jeopardise their position in allowing right-wing nationalists to hold up the enlargement process.
	That is why I welcome the recent initiative by the Swedish presidency to bring second-tier candidates into the first wave, with a sense of give and take over the free movement of labour. There is give and take; this is a modern, flexible and reformed EU. That makes a nonsense of the Opposition's scaremongering over insensitive integration. Their dog-in-the-manger approach shames their party, which has acquitted itself so honourably in previous times.
	Enlargement is of course not just about altruism. An enlarged EU will bring significant financial benefits to this country—and the statistics are there for people to see. We need to engage our people and explain those benefits to them. That is why there is a warning in the Irish referendum result. I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we cannot just ignore it and plough on like arrogant bureaucrats. We need a process of persuasion and dialogue to bring people round. That is why it is necessary to pay some attention to the social and cultural contribution to our common European inheritance that the applicant countries have made.
	Enlargement will banish for ever the views of Bismarck, who said that the Balkans were not worth the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier, and the infamous remarks of Chamberlain in Munich about the far-away country of whose people we know nothing. Today, in a globalised, interdependent world, that is not true. There are city breaks to Tallinn, Krakow and Budapest. We recognise the immense cultural contributions of such countries. One thinks of the contributions during the last century of composers such as Dvorak, Janacek, Bartok and Gorecki. One thinks of writers such as Kafka and Horvath. One thinks of Mitteleuropa and the Hapsburg multiethnic and multinational union, which was viable. One thinks even of Mr. Rubik, with his cube—an apt image for the delivery and finesse with which we shall have to operate in enlarged EU institutions.
	The momentum of enlargement will be maintained only by telling our peoples about common heritage, interest and hope. Nice and its ratification is a vital refuelling point in that momentum. That is why this House should give it and the enlargement process that it guarantees its fullest support.

Mark Simmonds: I congratulate my fellow maiden speakers the hon. Members for Guildford (Sue Doughty), for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), and my hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), who in their own way all gave very informative, lucid and erudite speeches.
	It is a great honour and a privilege to deliver my maiden speech as the new Member for Boston and Skegness. I am in fact only the third Member of Parliament to represent the Boston end of the constituency in 64 years. My immediate predecessor was Sir Richard Body. He made Whips nervous, but represented the people and the surrounding areas of Boston for 35 years and, prior to that, the people of Billericay. Amazingly, he made his maiden speech on 6 May 1956.
	Sir Richard was a great parliamentarian—a man of great vision, tenacity and expertise, particularly on the issues of Europe and agriculture. The great thing about him was that he was never afraid to voice his views, however unfashionable, awkward or unpopular they were at the time. He has invariably been proved right. Let us hope that in this Parliament we have more hon. Members willing to speak their minds than in the last. Sir Richard is held in great affection in the constituency. He always stood up for working men and women. It will be an enormous challenge to follow a man of such integrity and conviction.
	Since the boundary changes of 1995, Boston is now linked in a new constituency with Skegness, which my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) looked after so ably for so many years. The change creates two very distinct and diverse parts of the constituency, which is approximately 15 miles wide by 30 miles long. One boundary hugs the Wash and contains some of the best agricultural land in the United Kingdom, although let there be no doubt that even with top quality arable land, those involved and employed in agriculture are suffering severe hardship as incomes evaporate and prices are squeezed. It should be understood that this appalling agricultural depression extends to those involved in tangential and associated businesses which are nevertheless fundamental to the local economy.
	There are pockets of severe rural poverty and deprivation, the likes of which I have never seen before. I will, with all the necessary and appropriate local and national bodies, endeavour to assist those who have been left behind by economic growth. I shall be an assiduous advocate on behalf of farmers, packhouse owners and their employees, to create a level playing field allowing them to compete on equal terms with both their European and global competitors. There is great nervousness about the enlargement of the European Union and potential cheap imports of agricultural produce, with associated concerns about quality control and standards.
	However, the constituency is not only agricultural. There is a thriving and hard-working fishing fleet, a successful port and many manufacturing businesses. There is also a plethora of small, dynamic entrepreneurial businesses exemplified by the razzmatazz of Skegness. Many of those small businesses are in tourism and the holiday trade and employ no more than one or two people. We must ensure that the resilience of the business men and entrepreneurs is not undermined by excessive regulation from home and abroad. There are also some very large, high profile and successful tourist businesses in Skegness, such as Fantasy Island and Butlins, which are well-known and cater all year round for a vibrant and lively tourist trade.
	Underlying this energetic and vigorous business atmosphere is a real sense of community. Nothing assists people more as they go through life's vicissitudes than a sense of community. The best example of this is the Skegness lifeboat, whose brave crew, when called to do so, risk their lives to save others.
	During my campaign in Skegness, I encountered a little old lady in a little old bungalow who, when asked how she would vote, informed me that she had always voted Labour, but oh no, not this time. She was going to vote for that good-looking young man and vote Conservative. I straightened my tie, puffed out my chest slightly and with great pleasure informed her that I was that good-looking young man. She replied without hesitation, "No, no, not you, I mean William Hague". So, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is ever looking for female company, I know a little old lady in a little old bungalow.
	There are 70 to 75 villages and hamlets in my constituency. Some of the larger ones, such as Burgh Le Marsh, Friskney and Wrangle, may be familiar to those who know Lincolnshire, but one of them has a particular history—Wainfleet. William of Wainfleet was not only Bishop of Winchester, but Lord Chancellor to Henry IV. He also founded Magdalen college, Oxford. In the spirit of European co-operation, Wainfleet provided in 1359 two warships for the invasion of Brittany. Today Wainfleet contains one of the few highly successful family-run breweries that are remain. It is called Batemans and real ale aficionados will be familiar with the name. It is a local business that I am delighted to support.
	In the constituency we have many dedicated and long-suffering education professionals who support an extremely successful grammar school system and also work energetically to drive up standards in primary and secondary modern schools. I will provide any support and encouragement to improve educational provision in Boston and Skegness, and there is much room for improvement.
	My constituency has historically benefited greatly from European assistance. Indeed, much of it would still be under the sea if it was not for the land reclamation expertise exported from Holland. However, some of the contents of the treaty are not in the interests of my constituents or the country. I shall, of course, endeavour to follow the traditions of the maiden speech and not traverse the avenue of controversy. There are, however, several key issues that I must highlight.
	There is an ever-increasing democratic deficit. All of us in the House are democrats, of whatever political persuasion. However, the deficiency is exacerbated by the treaty and is increasingly prevalent in the European Union. Not only has Ireland recently voted no in its referendum, but it seems that the democratic desire of the Irish people will at best be circumvented and at worst ignored. Such an attitude seems to contradict entirely the charter of fundamental human rights, which was also discussed at Nice. It appears that the EU wishes to give powers with one hand, and with the other to ride roughshod over people when they exercise those powers in an allegedly disagreeable manner.
	I do not see what the charter can do for the United Kingdom, as we have a constitution that has evolved through history and served us well for the last thousand years. The charter must not be annexed to future treaties or made legally enforceable. The treaty is supposed to be fundamentally about enlargement, but instead it is integrationist, making it more complicated and difficult for countries to accede. I do not see anywhere in the treaty the necessary reforms to enable that to happen efficiently and effectively.
	There seems to be a general acceptance in the House that the CAP requires fundamental and far-reaching reform, but I find no mention of it. Are we going to subsidise east European agriculture in the same way we have our own over the past 30 or 40 years? Instead, the treaty contains 31 new areas that will be subject to qualified majority voting. What do pension rights for judges have to do with enlargement? The extension of QMV allows no opportunity to stop any policy in those areas, irrespective of whether it is in the national interest.
	There is a direct causal link between the ratification of treaties such as Nice and the poor voter turnout. It is not until we address this fundamental issue that the electorate will believe that they have an impact through the democratic process. I am not advocating withdrawal, but arguing forcefully that if Europe is to survive and succeed in the forthcoming years, it must become more democratically accountable—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time allocation.

Andy Burnham: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) on a self-assured maiden speech full of passion and conviction, and all the maiden speakers so far on the high standard that they have set.
	Today's debate is about the new Europe, but I hope that a view from one of its oldest industrial heartlands will bring a useful perspective to our proceedings. I grew up in the Leigh area and it is with great pride that I take my seat as its fifth Labour Member of Parliament. I aim to give the House an authentic voice from my home area in the years to come.
	For someone making his maiden speech, I am in the unusual position of already having made history in the House. On 26 October 1996, The Times reported:
	"The mobile phone has finally breached the last bastion of low-tech tranquillity: the House of Commons."
	I have always kept quiet about that, but today I own up as the naive researcher who made that historic call. I am relieved to say that it has not harmed the career of the right hon. Member on the receiving end, and I can only hope that my future contributions to the House will be less irritating than that one.
	Many people of my generation in the north-west feel proud of their regional roots, but also feel part of Europe. They want Britain to play a positive part in creating a strong and united Europe and to enjoy the benefits that that would bring. The Bill will help that process. But I make a strong and heartfelt plea today that, in the drive to assist the emerging economies of Europe, we do not overlook the real need in the communities that were the cradle of the industrial revolution in Europe.
	The spinning jenny was invented in Leigh by a poor weaver called Thomas Highs, but we were denied our place in the history books by an entrepreneur from Blackburn who quickly patented it. I shall fight for what Leigh deserves—although on reflection it would perhaps not be a good idea to annoy the Foreign Secretary in my maiden speech.
	Our area is renowned for its strong tradition in engineering and coal mining. The towns that make up my constituency—Leigh, Atherton, Hindley, Hindley Green, Lowton, Golborne and Bickershaw—grew up around the coal and textile industries, the decline of which has caused real need in those communities.
	For 22 years, those communities have been loyally represented by my predecessor, Lawrence Cunliffe. Lawrence worked in the local mining industry and knew the area and its people well. He entered the House in 1979 and, while national developments made the following years bleak for Leigh, Lawrence always fought our case, and I know that I speak for many people in thanking him for his work on our behalf.
	Only days into the job, I have been made painfully aware of the challenges that we face to stay competitive in the new Europe. Ingersoll-Rand has announced that it is considering relocating its manufacturing operation for portable compressors from Hindley Green to the Czech Republic, resulting in the loss of 250 jobs.
	I am worried that an air of inevitability is growing around the loss of manufacturing jobs from Britain, with the use of vague terms such as market forces and globalisation. That is dangerous. As a country we need to work hard to keep jobs that are desperately needed.
	Today, with other Labour Members, I met union representatives from Hindley Green. The work force is doing all it can to give the company positive reasons to stay, and I urge the Government to bring all relevant parties together to see if more can be done to keep those jobs in my constituency.
	People in the Leigh area can be forgiven for having little confidence in this place. Until recently, it has delivered only bad news. Dr. Beeching put Leigh on the map—sadly, for making it the largest town in England without a railway station. Next came the closure of the mills and mines in the 1980s and 1990s, tearing the heart out of the communities based around them, and Leigh infirmary's accident and emergency unit was closed in the 1990s. The challenge I face is to restore people's faith in politics and show that Parliament does listen and deliver good news as well as bad.
	The Leigh area now has its best opportunity for many years to make real progress. On 7 June, the country re-elected a Government committed to investing in the country's infrastructure and revitalising its former coalfields. After years of closures, new facilities are opening in the Leigh area—an NHS walk-in centre and a sure start scheme at Hindley. Millions have been invested in the fabric of our local schools, including £2 million at Lowton high school.
	The Leigh constituency has perhaps benefited more than most from the working families tax credit and the national minimum wage. Parts of my constituency have objective 2 status and I want to ensure that funds begin to flow to help our local economy to compete in a new age. We are not stuck in the past, but understand the need to look to the emerging sectors of the service economy to bring jobs and prosperity.
	One of the proposals driven forward by Wigan borough council is the Xanadu project, a major leisure and retail development close to the site of a former colliery. At no cost to the public purse, it will create thousands of new jobs and bring a new railway station to the Leigh area. The proposal has been the subject of a planning inquiry and the inspector's report is with the Government. It is argued that such large developments should follow the country's population centres, its major towns and cities, but that logic precludes an area such as ours, made up of small townships and communities, from ever benefiting from a major regeneration project. But that is exactly what we need—a catalyst for change. Xanadu would give this deprived former coalfield hope of a better future, and I urge the Government to bear that in mind when reaching their decision.
	Some things in Leigh will never change. Leigh Centurions rugby league club has a proud history and will continue to be a strong source of civic pride and identity. After troubled times, the club is thriving again and on Sunday completed the Northern Ford premiership season as league champions. I hope that the House will join me in congratulating it and allow me to thank one of Leigh's greatest ever players, the former Great Britain star Mick Martyn, who did so much to help me to serve Leigh in Parliament. Like our town, Leigh Centurions have come back the hard way and earned the right to be promoted to the Super League, but that decision is out of their hands. I make a direct plea to the Super League to accept Leigh. Such is the importance of the club to our area that it would give it a real boost and instil renewed optimism for the future.
	I joined the Labour party at the age of 15 to fight for a better deal for the working people of Leigh among whom I grew up. It will be with a great sense of personal fulfilment that I will work with the Government during the next few years to continue the improvements that they have started and to right some of the wrongs that we have suffered. 8.16 pm

Mark Hendrick: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) for such an excellent maiden speech, and congratulate all those others who have made excellent speeches today. It was a particular privilege for me as a relatively new Member, not having heard a maiden speech before.
	The Nice treaty brings together the wider nations of Europe on the basis of free trade, international agreement and co-operation, founded on democratic institutions, and it paves the way for European security. It is a recipe for a strong Britain in a greater Europe. Enlargement will mean a bigger Europe capable of looking after our interests in a global context. It means a bigger trading area to create even more prosperity and jobs. That is why the Government have negotiated the treaty on behalf of the British people.
	In the last century, Europe was for the most part divided. There were two world wars, millions of people killed and nations living in fear of one another. What has been achieved in the past 50 years is astonishing and, in its significance, outweighs the achievements of the past 2,000 years. National barriers to the movement of goods, people and services have been swept away by the development of international road, air, rail, energy and information networks, and those networks are the arteries of the European economy, the health of which is dependent on the ability of goods, capital and services to flow freely around Europe.
	Where problems exist within the European economy, European institutions support and restructure development so that ailing parts of the economy are remedied. In my region, more than 400,000 jobs are linked to membership of the EU and in the next five years the area will receive more than £1.5 billion in EU structural funds. It is essential that all the nations of Europe benefit in that way. The alternative of division and isolation will only lead to the conflicts that plagued the last century and continue to fester in this century.
	Nationalism in Europe has been swept away by those economic forces because the nation states of Europe recognise that future economic prosperity and security require membership of the EU and commitment to its further development. However, with anything up to 28 nations as members, there is clearly a need for the reform of European institutions such as the Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers. That is what happened at Nice. Anyone who says that reform is still needed obviously has not read the treaty.
	The Government have achieved that while acquiring more power for Britain through the reweighting of votes in the Council of Ministers. They have agreed a limit to the size of the European Commission and more majority voting where that will promote Britain's interests in areas such as trade liberalisation and improved financial controls. On vote reweighting, Labour has secured a substantial increase in the strength of Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers—the first increase since Britain joined the European Union.
	Many hon. Members will know that, as smaller states have joined the EU in each successive round of enlargement, the voting strength of the larger member states has declined disproportionately. In an EU of 28 countries, it would have been possible for member states representing a minority of the population to achieve a qualified majority. The treaty of Nice prevents that from happening by reweighting the votes of all member states to reflect more accurately the population size. The Government have also agreed with other member states that, from 2005, all member states should have only one Commissioner, which will limit increases in the size of the Commission after enlargement.
	The historic treaty of Nice introduces improved procedures for enhanced co-operation. It is essential for an enlarged European Union to be flexible enough to enable groups of member states to co-operate more closely on specific projects. This is not a lumbering superstate, as the Opposition would suggest, but a flexible union which can act, for example, in the fight against crime and drugs, where closer co-operation is essential, but which would not prejudice the fight against these problems in non-participating countries. The interests of member states will be preserved and the use of enhanced co-operation can be referred to the European Council. Enhanced co-operation cannot be used to undermine the single market or other common European Union policies. It will be open to all member states, which will provide a guarantee against the creation of an inner core of member states that operate as a block vote.
	The next intergovernmental conference, in 2004, will discuss a delimitation of competencies between the European Union and the member states to prevent unnecessary centralisation. There will be a debate about how to involve national Parliaments in European decision making, and the conference will also consider the means of putting the treaties into plain language so that they are easier to understand for the people of Europe.
	Europe needs strong member states, and the development process will explode the Conservative myth that the European Union is becoming a superstate. The extension of qualified majority voting will contribute to the reform that Britain wants: further trade liberalisation, improved financial controls and European Commission appointments being made on the basis of merit. QMV is an opportunity, not a threat. It is the oil of the European Union, and the huge benefits that it has brought, such as the European single market, are a testament to that fact. Labour has ensured that the national veto is retained in key areas such as treaty change, taxation, border controls, social security, defence and the revenue-raising mechanisms.
	Although one would not have thought it when listening to some Opposition Members, the Conservative party agreed to 42 extensions of QMV when it was in government. Twelve extensions were made in the Single European Act 1985 and 30 were made in the Maastricht treaty. Yet Opposition Members have the cheek to argue against the treaty in its current form. QMV has always worked in Britain's interests.
	Let us consider what is good about the treaty in terms of QMV. Obviously, there are improvements in trade and services. Changes have been made in respect of structural and cohesion funds, to prevent net recipients from blocking efficiency and cost savings. There is also help on environmental issues, financial regulation, appointments and industrial policy. The treaty will enhance stability and security in Europe, as well as many other aspects.
	We live in a world that is shrinking because of new means of travel and communications. The world of the 21st century should be about peace, freedom and security for all. If we can bring together the whole of Europe in this manner, who knows what we can achieve on a global scale? It is my firm belief that, later this century, we can bring together a global union with all the values and types of institution that we have created here in Europe. That needs reform of the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, and a willingness in the world—and the G8 nations in particular—to recognise that peace and prosperity can be achieved only by co-operation and by sharing the world's resources. The enlargement of Europe is an important step towards that goal, and I only hope that I will live long enough to see it achieved.

Mike Gapes: I want to confine my remarks to the European security and defence policy aspects of the treaty. Before I begin, I should like to add my congratulations to new hon. Members on their maiden speeches. I remember that there was an empty Chamber when I made my maiden speech on a Friday morning in 1992, while the Queen's Speech was being debated. It must be far more difficult to make such a speech to a House that is relatively full, at least on the Labour Benches. The Conservative Benches are rather empty at this moment.
	I wish to concentrate on the defence aspects of the treaty because it is important for us to recognise that there has been a shift in recent weeks in the attitudes of the United States in respect of European security and defence policy. I was in Washington last week, meeting members of Congress and of the Administration, with a British-American parliamentary group delegation. Significantly, the previous rhetoric of the Republican party, which was whipped up by the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, has died down. We were told by officials in the new Administration that the US had been astonished by the developments at St. Malo and had been concerned about what had happened since, but was now far more relaxed. We were also told that the European developments that were foreshadowed in the Helsinki statement of 1999 and that are set out in the Nice proposals and the comprehensive presidency report appendix were seen as complementary to NATO. One person to whom I spoke said that it would be worse for European security and defence policy to fail because of lack of resources than for it to be autonomous. The key is how to work out the day-to-day relationships of NATO and the European Union.
	That attitude is welcome, and follows a further shift in the position of the American Administration, who have been in office for only a few months and have not formed all their posts, in relation to policy on the Balkans. Secretary of State Colin Powell has now said that we went in together, so we should go out together. That position is diametrically different from the Republican party's election platform of cutting forces from the Balkans and withdrawing unilaterally. That is welcome as Europeans try to cope with the legacy of the conflict in the Balkans and in view of the dangerous situation in Macedonia.
	I visited Kosovo a few months ago with the Select Committee on Defence. We stood on the so-called chicken leg, looking down on the Presevo valley in Serbia. On the other side, in Macedonia, we saw the area of conflict, which has been shown so graphically on our television screens in recent weeks. British forces were there, working with a NATO ally, Norway, and two other European Union states, Sweden and Finland. We were also working in the zone that is allocated to the Americans. That is a sign of European partners in the EU working with their European and north American NATO partners for the common good.
	Nonsensical rhetoric was used in the general election campaign about, for example, Euro armies.

Mark Francois: Speak for yourself.

Mike Gapes: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and contribute to the debate, I shall give way.

Mark Francois: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. However, I am now on my feet, so I shall say that he can speak for himself, but not all hon. Members agree that there is no such thing as a European army, especially in view of developments in the past six months. He can hold his opinion and we can hold ours, but he should not pretend that ours is nonsense. There are two views.

Mike Gapes: Those views were presented during the election campaign. My Conservative opponent fought the campaign with a megaphone in Ilford town centre. All he seemed able to say was, "Save the pound. Keep the pound." People in my constituency had a clear choice and the Conservative vote decreased from a little more than 30 per cent. to approximately 25 per cent.—a resounding vote of confidence in the Opposition's policies. It was a rejection of sectarianism, to which I referred in Westminster Hall this morning.
	There is clearly a need to work out the detail of the arrangements for armed forces. The headline goal of 60,000 troops to be deployed for a year with rotation is, unfortunately, ambitious for some European countries. It must be achieved, and we should begin to argue more forcefully, especially with Germany, about the need for stronger, more effective contributions from their forces. It is no good the British, French and Dutch taking the lead because of the shape of our armed forces and the way in which we have worked in the past.
	Other European partners must change the structure of their forces and the way in which they co-operate and are deployed. That will be difficult and painful for those who have concepts of territorial defence and have no expeditionary strategy or tradition of deployment in other countries. That also applies to those who, for long-understood historical reasons, have political aversion to that or face adverse public opinion. However, such change is essential if we are to achieve the headline goals that were set out in Helsinki and reaffirmed in Nice.
	Enlargement of the EU is desirable and essential, and it will happen. However, there is a parallel debate about the enlargement of NATO. We need to start making some distinctions. From information that I picked up in the United States, I am worried by the strength of the well organised lobby, which is linked through the Administration to Democrats and Republicans in Congress and key staffers, in favour of early, rapid enlargement to include all three Baltic states. We need to think that through.
	The argument for including the Baltic states in the European Union if they meet the economic criteria is unassailable. However, we should express our anxieties about the political consequences for the relationship with Russia and the stability of Europe of precipitate early NATO enlargement to include all applicant countries. In Warsaw, President Bush referred to those matters obliquely. He talked about the Baltic states joining European institutions. Some of us in Europe should express more strongly to the United States our anxiety to ensure that there is no automatic conveyor belt for all states to join the hard security organisation of NATO, which will remain pre-eminent in defence and security matters.

Stephen Ladyman: It is a pleasure to participate in a debate that has included so many eloquent and confident maiden speeches. They came from my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) and the hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds), for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), for Guildford (Sue Doughty) and for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I apologise if I have missed anyone off the list. They all painted such delightful visions of their constituencies that if it were not for the fact that I am lucky enough to have the one constituency that is even more delightful, I would be planning immediately after the debate to move my house and family to one of their constituencies. I congratulate them all.
	I have been impressed by the maiden speeches, but with the greatest respect, I was less than impressed by the speech of the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). He, like most Opposition Members, did not paint a coherent vision of Europe. He claimed that the Opposition supported Europe, could see the benefits of Europe and wanted Europe enlarged. However, he painted no vision of how that could be achieved. Similarly, he painted no vision of what he wanted Europe to do if it were not doing what he wanted it to do.
	I commend to the right hon. Gentleman a document entitled "One Europe". I do not know whether he has read it, but if he has, I suggest that he re-reads it. It was written by a former an aide to Margaret Thatcher, who subsequently became one of her most trusted Cabinet Ministers. It painted a clear vision of Europe that grew out of the vision that the Conservatives had of Europe throughout the 1960s and 1970s. It was a vision that clearly informed their actions over the 18 years that they were in government from 1979.
	I commend the document to the right hon. Member for Horsham because, first, it said that we should not be scared about economic union and that we should face the desirable need for political union and not be afraid of monetary union and even military union. Secondly, he should read the document because one of its publishers was his father. He could well be enlightened by its contents. At least it painted a coherent vision of Europe.
	After we give the Bill a Second Reading, as I hope that we will, let us start speaking up for Europe. Let those of us who believe in Europe start to proselytise for Europe. Let us start trying to explain to the people of the United Kingdom what it is that we believe that Europe offers.
	A theme of the debate is the need to reconnect people with Europe. If we are to achieve that, we must explain to people what Europe has achieved for them. In my constituency, that is relatively easy. We receive European objective 2 funding. I can take people to the road to which Europe contributed, which is a vital part of the economic infrastructure. I can take them to the new university campus that has been built on a business park that was serviced as a result of funding from Europe. I can take them also to the promenade, which similarly was funded by Europe. Two weeks ago, we all enjoyed the United Kingdom power boat grand prix in Ramsgate, which was paid for by Europe. I can show people what Europe is doing for them.
	It is not so easy to do so in some constituencies because the benefits of Europe are slightly less tangible. Nevertheless, they are there. Factories have been built in the UK because people want to invest in Europe. There are jobs that exist only because we are in Europe. In the south-east of England, 495,000 jobs are linked directly to trade with Europe. Many tens of thousands of those jobs are in east Kent, the area that includes my constituency.
	I can explain to people the security that has come from the peaceful co-existence of nations since the second world war as a result of Europe. Protection comes from human rights legislation, and there is freedom of movement. Those are all benefits that we get from Europe. We should start explaining to people that they are receiving them from Europe. When they understand that, they will understand the benefits of enlargement that are made possible by the treaty. They will understand why we say that enlargement could create 300,000 more jobs across Europe. They will also understand when we say that enlargement will increase the security of Europe.
	We can also show people the benefits of common working in the treaty of Union. One of the few issues in the political process that really inspires people is that of the environment. The treaty of Union sets out the need to work together on environmental issues—which are of fundamental importance to us—on drugs, on combating organised crime and on organising asylum better than we do at the moment. All those things come with being members of the European Union and they can all be improved by enlargement. The EU works. We might want it to work better and to be more transparent, and we might want its decision-making process to be more efficient and rational sometimes, but it works.
	The treaty makes enlargement possible. As other hon. Members have said, it does not, in itself, bring about enlargement. However, without modernisation we cannot have enlargement. Conservative Members who pointed out that we need modernisation of the Union and its institutions would deny it the means to carry out that modernisation if they denied it this treaty.
	Qualified majority voting is an important concept. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) claimed that there would be a democratic deficit because we are to lose our veto on certain matters, that totalitarianism was about to rule, and that we were in danger of handing over power to minority parties and extremist Governments in other countries. In reality, there are, by my calculations, 237 qualified majority votes under the new structure. That means that a majority would be achieved by 119 votes. The minimum number of nations that would need to vote together to achieve that majority would be five, although only if they were the five biggest nations, which command the support of some 300 million people. That is not a recipe for allowing small nations to dominate the union, or for giving away our democracy. If we were not among those five nations, it would require six nations to outvote us in any such decision.
	We must not overlook what happened in Ireland. Clearly, we must respect the view of the Irish people. We have to convince them that changes have been made to facilitate their views and concerns; we cannot ride roughshod over them. However, hon. Members who say that the Union lacks democratic legitimacy should remember that the opinions of only half a million people in that referendum will hold up a treaty that affects the lives of half a billion people. Surely that demonstrates that the Union is taking account of minority views and is focused on their needs and opinions.
	The European Union costs only about 1 per cent. of the annual gross domestic product of the member states. For that, we get more jobs, more trade, more security, more protection for our rights, and better controls on the environment, on monopolies, on drug traffickers and on asylum. That is a good bargain. The treaty, if we ratify it, will give us the power to make further improvements to the Union and to carry out the enlargements that we all know are necessary, and will be of benefit to every one of our constituents in the long run.

Chris Bryant: Many thanks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I am particularly grateful as I lost my maidenhood only some 10 days ago. I apologise in case I miss anyone out, but it has been wonderful to hear excellent maiden speeches from Members representing Boston and Skegness, Guildford, Rayleigh, Greenock and Inverclyde, Argyll and Bute and Fareham. That sounds like the shipping forecast.
	I am particularly delighted to have heard the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who has been a personal friend for many years. I hope that further legislation will make it possible for all anti-Catholic parts of the constitution that still remain to be removed. I also welcome the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), as I have been told by my Whip that he and I will be in adjacent offices from next Monday.
	I should tell my hon. Friend that I stole a Tory fan earlier today. There are not many Tory fans these days, but I know that it is a Tory fan because it was in the room that says "Tories" on the door. There were no Tories inside, however, and the fan will be in the office on Monday. I note that we are to share the rooms that were occupied until recently by the former Member for Billericay, Mrs. Teresa Gorman. I doubt whether we can fill the space that she occupied.

Menzies Campbell: Have you had the tuck?

Chris Bryant: I have not had the tuck and I am not fibbing about my age either.
	I am delighted to speak in the debate on the treaty of Nice for the simple reason that it relates to substantial issues that are significant to my constituents in the Rhondda. The first is enlargement, which matters, and we sometimes have to remind ourselves why: every time the European Union has gained new members, Britain has gained trade. Look at what happened after Spain and Portugal joined—Britain significantly increased its trade with those countries. When Greece joined, again we significantly increased our trade.
	I know that such an increase will be good for businesses in the Rhondda, whether they be newer industries or more traditional firms such as Burberrys, and I am pleased that we are extending the market in which the businesses of the Rhondda can trade. I am also pleased because enlargement will provide us with the opportunity to achieve greater political stability not just in the countries that we hope will join the EU, but across the world. We have a chance to establish long-term peace.
	Enlargement will also give many of our constituents the opportunity to share and extend benefits that we have known in our own country when they go abroad for trade or leisure purposes. For example, following Spain's accession to the EU, water quality off beaches around Spain improved significantly. That is of great importance to many of my constituents. For my own part, I suffered from meningitis in Spain several years ago and, unfortunately, had to go to hospital. However, thanks to Spain having acceded to the treaty, I received prompt help from the Spanish health services.
	It is good that we are discussing enlargement, but it is also good that we are talking about reform, and the Government are absolutely right to say that the treaty of Nice must involve the two coming together. Again, there are proposals that are of great value to our constituents, above all those on the battle against crime. The treaty gives us a chance to make a better fist of it by providing more opportunities to work together with other member states.
	I am pleased that there will be a new system for appointing the President of the Commission, which is far better than either the previous version or the version before that. However, I am slightly nervous about the role that will be played by the European Parliament. It is important that the directly elected Members of the European Parliament have the chance to quiz everybody who is appointed to the Commission.
	I am glad that the reforms in the treaty of Nice make it clear that it will be easier for the United Kingdom to get its way. We shall gain not only an increased share of the vote in the Council for the first time ever, but the ability to combine with others to create blocking minorities. We may get together with France and Germany or other members to achieve that and it represents a significant move forward, even for those who say that they are patriots who argue only for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
	I am anxious about a few issues that will have to be considered in the future. My first concern is about the workings of the Commission after more members have joined but before we get to EU 27. EU 27 is fine and clear: it is all arranged. We know how many members of the Commission there will be. There may be a lengthy period, however, when there are 25 or 26 members of the EU, and a Commission of 26, 25 or even 24 members will be completely unworkable, and will lead to more problems than we have already.
	My second concern is about the retention of the veto in areas of trade. It has been removed from intellectual property, which is right, but it still applies to audio-visual services and cultural services. This issue was pushed by the French, and we need to be careful about how they use the veto in the future, because we should not harm our audio-visual trade opportunities around the world.
	I am also concerned about the culture of the Commission. Too many people working in the Commission believe that their role is to meddle in the affairs of others. I am prepared to accept that the European Union will be better if countries work together more, but the Commission should think very hard before it intervenes. In the past, the Commission's Competition Directorate has tried to define the parameters of public service broadcasting, which is the subject about which I know the most. I firmly believe that it is for the member states to decide what is public service broadcasting, and no one else. It may be acceptable in Spain to have bullfighting on Spanish television on a Sunday afternoon paid for out of state funds, but that would not be acceptable in this country, and that is right and proper.
	My final concern is about the rotating presidency. It is crazy that offices in both Strasbourg and Brussels are used at an inordinate cost to the European Union. It would be good to look into that in the future, and we should also consider that mechanism to find an efficient way of doing business.
	There is a vacuum at the centre of the two Conservative amendments. The Conservatives' argument has always been that we must not surrender sovereignty to anyone else. The two amendments make the point that the Irish have already said that they do not want to go forward, so we cannot go forward. I am sorry, but to my mind that means that we should surrender our sovereignty to Dublin, never mind Brussels or Strasbourg—the Irish have decided, so that is the end of the story. I do not agree. I do not believe that the Irish should decide for us.
	The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) said that if the treaty is not ratified by the United Kingdom, it will not slow up enlargement. By golly, it would. If the United Kingdom did not ratify the treaty, the European Union would be in terrible difficulty and the enlargement process would be delayed by many years. That would be terrible for the United Kingdom, and especially for my constituents in the Rhondda.

Roger Casale: I am delighted to contribute briefly to the debate, although I am sorry that I am unable to be in my constituency of Wimbledon with the hundreds of thousands of British tennis fans who are celebrating the outstanding victory of Mr. Tim Henman. We all send our congratulations to him, and wish him well in the semi-final. However, my absence from Wimbledon is more than made up for by my being here as the Labour Member of Parliament for Wimbledon working with the Government and winning so convincingly the argument on Europe—so convincingly in fact that many Conservative Members are no longer present.
	In the last Parliament I was a member of the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, whose 17th report, published during the 1999-2000 Session, is one of the relevant documents listed on the Order Paper. During that Session, the Committee conducted, on behalf of the House, an extensive investigation of the intergovernmental conference that led to the Nice treaty, and of the way in which the British Government had conducted themselves during the negotiations. Our conclusions appear in the report.
	I want to challenge—I think the report will back up my challenge—the view expressed by many Opposition Members, notably the shadow Foreign Secretary, that the institutional reforms decided at Nice were not a necessary precursor of EU enlargement. Those who study the report—I urge Members to do so, although it seems that the shadow Foreign Secretary has not—will note our recommendation that the scope of the IGC that led to the treaty should be restricted to the practical reforms that we considered necessary to pave the way for enlargement. We did so exactly because we saw those changes as a precondition of enlargement, and we wanted enlargement to take place. We argued, successfully, that the Government should resist pressure from the European Commission and the European Parliament to widen the IGC's scope, in order not to jeopardise the chance of achieving the real, practical reforms that would allow enlargement.
	The shadow Foreign Secretary suggested that the EU was pursuing some starry-eyed federalist agenda through the IGC, but if he reads our report he will see that the Government's focus was firmly on the ground beneath our feet, and on the practical steps that were necessary for the widening of EU membership.
	Let us remember what constituted those limited but significant changes to the mechanics of the EU decision-making processes. There were changes to the size of the Commission: it was right for us to drop one of our two Commissioners if other countries that would join the EU in future were not to have a Commissioner at all. There were also changes to the weighting of votes. Now that those changes have been accepted, the three largest states, if opposed, can constitute a blocking majority. A further safeguard—an important democratic safeguard—was established, in the form of a supplementary condition that the member states constituting a majority should represent 62 per cent. of the population of the EU.
	Those changes may be technical, and they may not be easily understood by those who are not aficionados of the EU and its evolving institutional architecture; but, notwithstanding what we have heard from those on the Opposition Front Bench, they were essential if we were to prepare for a potential membership of 27 rather than the present 15 EU states.
	Behind the rather bald statement of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), which flies in the face of the facts—behind the stubborn refusal to acknowledge the reality of what was achieved and decided at Nice—lies a vision of Europe, and Britain's relationship with Europe, that would take the country back half a century or more. I must tell Opposition Members who will oppose ratification tonight that European integration has always been about much more than the creation of a free-trade area or a common market for goods and services, and it is about much more than that today.
	The Union of which we are a member has never been devoid of political content; nor does the European marketplace lack a social foundation. Not a single existing member of the European Union would want that to be the case, and certainly no applicant would wish to join the kind of Union that the right hon. Member for Horsham and his hon. Friends wish to create. Nor do I believe that any European member state or applicant state would believe that the EU described by Opposition Members could deliver the sort of practical improvements on which continued public confidence in the EU depends. However, the Conservative party has moved so far to the right on Europe that it has put itself well outside the mainstream of European Christian democracy. It would be difficult to name another party, let alone another Government, in the EU that would agree with the vision of Europe, and of its future, that the Conservative party is trying to put forward.
	We know that the vision put forward by the Tories was flatly rejected by the British people on 7 June. We also know that it has not gone down well with public opinion in other member states. When I researched this speech in the Library this afternoon, it was interesting to read the press comments that appeared in Germany, France and Italy at the time of the election about the Conservative party and the virulent form of Euro-scepticism that it was putting forward. One piece, by Stepfan Berger of Germany's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, caught my eye. Published on 6 June, it stated:
	"At present, the Tories are a truly sad old bunch: a kind of cabinet of horrors, made up of religious fundamentalists, Euro-sceptics, nationalists and people hostile to foreigners . . . Germanophobes are particularly widespread".
	The Conservative party must understand that its ideas about Europe and about Britain's relationship with Europe have been rejected not just by the British people. Labour Members and others must take on those ideas and propose a more confident and positive vision of Europe; otherwise, we risk appearing ridiculous in the eyes of European public opinion and of those European partner nations that we want to influence and with which we want to co-operate.
	However, the Tory election manifesto boasted:
	"The next Conservative Government will secure our independence and use Britain's great strength to help create a flexible European Union"—
	as if a Conservative Government were going to twist the arms of 14 other European nations and take them in a direction that none of them wanted to go.
	How were the Tories going to do that? They would do it be refusing to ratify the treaty of Nice. The manifesto stated:
	"We will not ratify the treaty of Nice, but will renegotiate it so that Britain does not lose its veto"—
	a veto that Britain had already lost as a result of the Maastricht treaty and other treaties to which the previous Conservative Government had signed up.
	The right hon. Member for Horsham is not in his seat. However, although it is all very well for him to say that globalisation requires co-operation but not integration, it is not acceptable then to argue that Britain should fail to co-operate when the means for such co-operation exist. The right hon. Gentleman said that he wanted an EU that is stable, prosperous, outward-looking and democratic. He should therefore support the ratification of the treaty of Nice.
	The right hon. Member for Horsham said that the French referendum on Maastricht nearly plunged Europe into chaos, but he wants to plunge the EU into chaos by refusing to ratify the treaty of Nice tonight. He should remember that the near-failure of the French to ratify the treaty of Maastricht also catapulted Britain out of the European monetary system.
	The Tory party must learn the lessons of the election on Europe. It is fantasy to believe that we can reverse 50 years of European development. It is not credible to claim that we can influence the future of Europe by carping from the sidelines. Before they vote to oppose ratification of the treaty of Nice tonight, Tory Members must take a moment to reflect on the fact that the Nice treaty is a limited treaty that makes the practical reforms necessary for enlargement. To oppose the treaty of Nice would give the impression that the Opposition want little more than to see the EU paralysed by lack of reform, or to block this historic opportunity to unite the two halves of Europe—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Meg Munn: I, too, am delighted to have this opportunity to speak in the debate. In 1979, I was a student in Strasbourg for a year. My newly directly-elected MEP came to the city for the first time while I was there. It was summer, and my grant being somewhat non-existent, I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet him. That MEP is now my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) and the Minister for Sport, and he made sure that I had two good meals that day. That evening, we went to a restaurant and met some Danish MEPs. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind my telling this story now—I have never told it before—but some anti-European British MEPs were meeting their Danish counterparts to discuss how they might pull out of Europe.
	The views of many Labours Members have changed—not all of them, as we have heard today—and one reason for that is that Europe has gone further in what it does. At that time, Labour party members thought that the Common Market was purely for trading purposes. It was viewed as another way for capitalism to grow bigger and bigger, without doing much good for the workers. More than 20 years on, I am pleased to say that the situation is completely different. We now see a recognition by Labour party members of the significance of globalisation and the importance of European and worldwide markets. We also have a Europe with a social conscience, which is concerned about the environment and which can be of benefit to ordinary people.
	The approach taken by the Conservatives is disappointing but predictable. Last weekend, as one of my first duties as a new Member of Parliament, I was invited to a conference on town twinning in Sheffield. It was organised to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the first visit of some young people from Sheffield's twin town, Bochum in the Ruhr valley. The origin of that link is similar to the origin of the development of what is now the European Union and has its roots in the fundamental desire for peace that followed the second world war. Town twinning was seen as a way for ordinary people to get to know each other, so that we would never again experience the horrors of that war.
	Three politicians attended the conference—I, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for the Liberal Democrats, and a local Conservative who had been a lord mayor. The Conservative spoke of how important the link between the towns had been and how it had brought alive for members of his group the things we have in common as Europeans. He talked of taking a busload of members from Sheffield council over to Bochum. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the trip would now need only a moped, because there is only one Conservative councillor left on Sheffield city council.
	Sheffield has also developed other links, especially with Donetsk in the Ukraine, which has also developed a link with Bochum. It is interesting to note that Bochum and Donetsk have developed trading links. It perhaps says something about Britain that we have not used those strong links to develop ways to trade better together. Time and again, our reluctance fully to participate and engage in Europe holds us back. When I talk to friends from Germany and France, they are often puzzled by our seeming half-heartedness. If we want to be a strong voice in Europe, we must stop that nonsense. We will only be seen as a nation that can influence what goes on if we are properly committed to the process.
	The benefits of the European Union appear to me to be threefold—stability, security and economic prosperity. Importantly, the economic prosperity is achieved in a socially responsible way. The Nice treaty offers us a process for enlargement, and I welcome that.
	Economic prosperity is important. I am staying with my sister while I am in London, and this morning we were discussing what I would be doing today, and I said that I was hoping to speak in this debate. We were looking at the list of applicant countries, and she made an important point. She works for a small specialist software company which exports its product throughout the world. She said that, because the product is so specialised—not unusual in computer technology these days—we need those markets. If companies are to survive and be at the cutting edge in Britain, they need to know that they can export to those markets. She looked down the list of applicants and it was surprising how many countries she had already visited on business. Other companies in the same position will also see this as a positive step.
	For me, developing the European Union further promotes the security and stability that the people of my parents' generation saw as so important to the future of the whole of Europe. Enlargement is in our interests; the principles that brought together a smaller number of countries must hold true now.
	The prospect of enlargement has already made a difference to political stability and international security in central and eastern Europe. We do not have to look very far to see some of the horrors that have taken place. People of my generation believed that we would never see such horrors again, but unfortunately we have. The European Union is fundamental to ensuring stability and is an important way forward for us and for those countries. If countries that border the EU suffer from poverty or division, we cannot all enjoy the security and stability that we want for ourselves and our families. We know that, without that prospect, neighbouring countries have suffered from instability and war, at great human and financial cost.
	I want the treaty to be ratified. Yes, there are many small things to discuss, but overall, this must be the way forward. My hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) made it clear how difficult things would be in the European Union if we did not ratify the treaty. I see it as very important; I want us to sign up to it wholeheartedly. It is time we stopped dithering, because that is how it appears to our European neighbours. Let us get on with it and be the strong voice in Europe that we are in a position to offer.

Richard Spring: In his absentia, may I warmly congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment and welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench, most particularly the Minister for Europe, the hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain)? Double congratulations are due.
	This has been a tremendous parliamentary debate. We have heard some outstanding speeches on both sides of the House from all the various viewpoints. What has come through above all is an underlying concern and anxiety, genuinely expressed, about the future of the European Union and the disconnection that is taking place between the peoples of Europe and the structures and institutions of the European Union. Those points were powerfully made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
	Among the excellent speeches were some memorable maiden speeches. I congratulate in particular the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who spoke warmly of her constituency and its many activities, including ice hockey, new businesses and cultural activities. I also wish to express my appreciation of the very kind comments she made about my friend Nick St. Aubyn. I hope that she will make many more such competent contributions to debates in the House in her parliamentary career.
	I should also like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) who, in a parliamentary sense, is truly to the manner born. As a parliamentary speaker, he already shows remarkable force and ability. He said that his constituency is not particularly beautiful, but he said so with great good humour and affection. We will all agree that his tributes to Dr. Michael Clark, who was a senior and respected parliamentarian, were extremely appropriate. I know that my hon. Friend will make excellent speeches in the House in the future.
	The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns) paid warm tribute to his predecessors. He talked about the history of his constituency and its fine maritime traditions, and said that it is moving towards modern industries such as updated electronics industries. He was very witty, and he has staked his claim to a position in history. He is a former cleric who has taken his place in the House, but he has yet to see as much as some of us of the vicar of St. Albion—a well known figure who is far less likely than the hon. Gentleman to appear frequently in the House. I congratulate him on his excellent speech and look forward to hearing frequent contributions from him in future.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made generous remarks about a highly intelligent and independent former parliamentary colleague, Sir Peter Lloyd. He talked with warmth and affection about his constituency, mentioned its naval history and said that new business is being attracted to the area. I took particular note of his reference to the pressure on housing in the south of England, which is a tremendous problem that we must deal with as the population tilts ever southward. I know from listening to him today that he will make an outstanding contribution to Parliament through his speeches in this Chamber.
	The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) spoke with warmth about Ray Michie, who was an impressive constituency representative. He made his constituency sound extremely attractive, and all who have visited it will know that that is the case. It is certainly one of the most beautiful parts of the British Isles, and he made it seem so tempting that he might just get a rash of visits from parliamentarians in the next few years. Apart from the stunningly beautiful aspects of his constituency, he also talked about worries that many of us share about rural Britain. I feel sure that he will be an eloquent spokesman for his constituency in his time in Parliament.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) paid tribute to Sir Richard Body, who was a great parliamentary individualist and a very assiduous constituency MP. My hon. Friend was right to bring powerfully to our attention the terrible problems currently experienced by British agriculture. Of course, Lincolnshire is a great farming county—one of the greatest in England. He talked about the welcome diversification in his constituency by small businesses and the tourist industry. Boston and Skegness has a fine representative in the House, and certainly a powerful orator.
	Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Unfortunately, I was not present to hear him, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) tells me that it was a fine speech. He talked about his predecessor, Lawrence Cunliffe, a long-standing parliamentarian. He discussed his worries about the manufacturing industry, which I think we all share. Of course, many parts of manufacturing are in recession. He spoke of the need to revitalise his constituency, of the Beeching cuts and of the coal mine closures of the past. His was a fine maiden speech and I wish him well in his career.
	The salutary effect of the Irish referendum was to make all of us stop and think about the future of the European Union, its democratic underpinnings and enlargement. Nice simply failed to address some of the most vital questions that the European Union faces, thereby making enlargement more difficult and adding to the increasing disconnection between the European Union's institutions and the citizens of its member states. Many hon. Members have made that point today, and we have repeatedly warned that that is precisely what would happen.
	The previous Foreign Secretary frequently told the House that Nice was essential for enlargement to proceed. He tried to tell us that, in not supporting Nice, we could not support enlargement. That was simply incorrect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) accurately warned that, in practice, Nice would actually slow down enlargement.
	I shall deal with the matter straight away. Conservative Members believe that enlargement is right both economically and politically, but it is a moral issue too. In government, we Conservatives played our part in fighting the totalitarianism that blighted the lives of millions of our fellow Europeans. We must now embrace them to help to secure their democratic status and prosperity—it is as simple as that. We will take no lessons on that score from any Labour politician.
	Both the Foreign Secretary and the Commission President have indicated that enlargement could go ahead without the Nice treaty, so let us consider all the extraneous baggage surrounding Nice which we believe to be so unnecessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and other hon. Members spoke about the implications of the move to increase qualified majority voting. That point was ably and directly taken up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard).
	None of that baggage is essential for enlargement, and we see, throughout Europe, people's growing alienation from EU institutions and structures; but has there been even one example of powers being returned to national Governments to deal with that problem? Did our Government argue for the return of such powers? By contrast, we would have drawn a clear line to begin the process of reversing the remorseless centralisation and harmonisation, which is crucial if the EU is to connect with its people again. That is why we want to give the British people a voice in this matter.
	Outside the treaty, but endorsed at Nice, is the charter of fundamental rights, described idiotically by the former Minister for Europe as being on a par with the Beano. That is not the view of learned counsel. The charter is being held up as the basis for a future written EU constitution, and even if that does not come about, the Commission has stated:
	"It can reasonably be expected that the Charter will become mandatory through the Court's interpretation of it as belonging to the general principles of Community law".
	Our long traditions of evolving case law and of the clear divide between the judiciary and the legislature will be undermined by the charter and the inevitable growth of judge-led law in this country.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the charter gives rise to a substantial problem? It is effectively a blank cheque for enormously increased taxation on the people of Europe, because the provisions of the social agenda, which are entrenched by the charter, will be enforced by the judicial activism of the court.

Richard Spring: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the various dangers of the charter. If it is to serve as the basis of a written European constitution, the implications are very serious for a country such as ours, which has no written constitution.
	The foundation of the European rapid reaction force had little to do with the ability of Europeans to carry out important defence-related roles, and everything to do with the process of political integration in the EU. We want, and have always argued for, enhanced pan-European defence co-operation; the Americans want greater burden sharing. The EU plays this game with the future of NATO at our peril. It will test the one organisation that has secured peace and stability in Europe for over 50 years. At Nice, we saw measures to allow European-level political parties to be funded, and for the EU to involve itself in individual countries' affairs merely on the basis of speculation about what may happen in future.
	Setting aside enlargement, however important, what are the great issues facing the EU, and are the Government dealing with them? Did they highlight them at Nice? There can be little controversy about the projected demographic trends of the EU over the next 40 years, with declining birth rates. Can our welfare structures survive in the face of that? How do we generate the wealth to sustain an ever-growing ageing population?
	The Prime Minister sought to address that at Lisbon; it was heady stuff. We heard much about benchmarking, the knowledge-based economy and the information society. Harold Wilson would have loved it; white heat had nothing on that Lisbon speech. Afterwards, the Prime Minister said:
	"The Council marks a sea change in European economic thinking. It points Europe in a new direction—away from heavy-handed intervention and regulation, towards a new approach based on enterprise, innovation and competition."—[Official Report, 27 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 21.]
	A week later, Lionel Jospin rejected that change outright, reaffirming the European social model. We were told that change was a prerequisite for Europe's economic success, but the Prime Minister's speech was viewed by many as vacuous techno-babble, and was cast into the out-tray at Stockholm a year later. So much for the Prime Minister's influence in Europe.
	At Nice, the outline for the 2004 IGC was set, mainly in response to European peoples' increasing disillusion with the EU. What have the Government done to address that democratic deficit? Last October, the Prime Minister made a speech in Warsaw about trying to achieve democratic accountability; at the heart of it was a proposal for a second chamber. It almost defies belief that that is the UK's main and substantial contribution to the comprehensive and lively debate about the future of the EU. Perhaps the Prime Minister was inspired by the fabled and huge success of his reform of the House of Lords. That is almost incredible, as he himself told us last week in the Chamber that he wanted no rival second Chamber to the Commons. He wants, however, to foist such a body on Europe; that is monumental irrelevance, and must be set against the genuine need for enhanced powers for national parliaments themselves.
	Again at Nice, it was agreed that there should be work towards involving Europe's citizens in the European project. What have the Government done about that in Britain? We have had the taxpayer-funded "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign, the most visible manifestation of which was the former Minister for Europe travelling around the country in a bus, visiting our towns and cities. One simply could not have written the script; the enterprise was farcical and embarrassing. On those bus trips, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) distributed items of literature paid for by the taxpayer. They included "Your Britain, Your Europe: Want to Know More?" which, under the heading, "The Treaty of Nice Explained", poses the question:
	"But I thought it was about creating a superstate?"
	It answers:
	"Not at all. That was just another EU myth."
	Then we get two wonderful new Labour Aunt Sallies. The document states:
	"There is nothing in the Treaty about a European police force or an elected European President. And there was never going to be. Nice was about preparing for enlargement, pure and simple."
	What a load of inaccurate and patronising drivel! Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the campaign and its challenge to the intelligence of the British people? I urge him to end it forthwith.
	Nice was a failed opportunity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham indicated, there can be no enlargement without reform of the common agricultural policy. This afternoon, there was an astonishing intervention by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South–West (Dr. Starkey), who signed the Foreign Affairs Committee report on Nice but was not familiar with its contents. No applicant country has closed the agriculture chapter.

Andrew Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, in the Opposition amendment, there is criticism of the Government for failing to address reform of the CAP? Last night, however, in our debate on the Berlin summit, which dealt with matters relating to the CAP, they did not even bother to table an amendment.

Richard Spring: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Berlin summit did anything radical about the funding of the common agricultural policy, he is completely ignorant of the actual situation.
	The Prime Minister ducks and weaves whenever the matter of agriculture is raised. I truly hope that the Foreign Secretary will grasp the nettle and try to find a way forward with our European partners, which will both save the EU from bankruptcy and protect the larger-scale farms in this country.
	Leading to the IGC from Nice, there is a lively and serious debate about the future of an enlarged EU. Every major European leader has presented a vision of what it should be. Only one sits on the sidelines, parroting "constructive engagement", but failing to come up with clear parameters and policies for the future. Sadly, that is the United Kingdom under Labour.
	There is a terrible danger that the EU will become ossified in a time warp of thinking that was appropriate to the 1950s and 1960s. The idea that a "one size fits all" policy, based on a social agenda that is totally out of place in the globalised network that we inhabit, can possibly succeed defies all common sense.
	We on the Conservative Benches want an enlarged EU that will meet the problem of alienation and disconnection and the demographic challenges of enlargement and of a globally competitive marketplace. Just as we were right about Nice, by contrast with a Government whose thinking is now frozen in time, we are now looking to the future. Our view is of a modern, outward-looking and democratically supported EU which Britain can help to shape.
	By contrast, at Nice, yet another opportunity—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not like to hear this because they know that they have lost the argument. They know that their attitudes towards the EU are totally inappropriate in a modern world and an enlarged Community. At Nice, that was manifest.
	The Government failed at Nice to raise all the crucial and important issues relevant to the survival and prosperity of the EU. We want a European Community that will be prosperous and outward-going. All that was passed up at Nice by this Government, whose thinking is outmoded and irrelevant to the real needs of the people of Europe, and of the people of Britain in particular.

Peter Hain: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for graciously welcoming me to my post. He gave a very accomplished response to the debate. I am glad that he is improving his education by reading excellent Foreign Office leaflets. I hope that he continues to do so.
	This has been an extremely thoughtful debate on Europe. Indeed, it has probably been the highest quality debate that I have heard since becoming a Member 10 years ago. It has been unrecognisable compared with the general tone of such debates in this House over that period. What has distinguished it for me has been the fact that there have been five times as many Labour speakers as Conservative contributors—and the debate has been five times the better for it.
	It is invidious to select a number of the best speeches, but perhaps I could refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who both spoke very interestingly. Their speeches will repay reading in the context of the future reform programme of the EU leading up to the intergovernmental conference in 2004. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made extremely interesting speeches, too.
	We heard excellent maiden speeches to which I want to pay fulsome tribute. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) made her constituency sound almost as attractive as Neath. I very much welcomed her victory when I saw it come up on the television screen on the night, although Nick St. Aubyn was a very valued Member of the House. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Wait for it—he might come back to the House to replace some of the less valued hon. Members whom I see staring at me.
	We heard a very good speech from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid), another Liberal replacement in the House. Listening to the tour of his constituency, I was reminded of all the malt whiskies from that part of Scotland which are so excellent to taste. He replaced a Liberal stalwart, Ray Michie, who was held in great affection in the House.
	The hon. Members for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) and for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) paid fine tributes to their predecessors. Along with the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois), they showed remarkable confidence in their maiden speeches and will no doubt prove formidable adversaries for the Government in years to come.
	Another who showed remarkable confidence was my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (David Cairns), who brought an excellent touch of pulpit oratory to the House, and in doing so paid a well-received tribute to his predecessor, Norman Godman, who was an excellent and diligent member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend spoke about the importance of companies in a constituency such as his being able to export to Europe. He argued convincingly that there were enormous benefits from enlargement for constituencies such as his and the companies in them, deriving from the extra trade and opportunity that would come from up to 200 million more people coming into the European Union. That is one of the aspects of the Nice treaty that we commend to the House.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) made an eloquent maiden speech, especially about the industrial tradition which is at the root of his constituency and from which his predecessor, Lawrence Cunliffe, sprang. He was a valued Member and is much missed on the Labour Benches.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh has a dispute with my boss, the Foreign Secretary, about where the spinning ferry was invented—[Hon. Members: "Spinning jenny."] I am sorry; I was thinking of Argyll and Bute for a moment. I am sure that the dispute will be resolved peacefully outside the Chamber.
	The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) has made a valuable contribution during his time in the House, especially on renewable energy matters, for which we had a common enthusiasm when I was in my previous Government post. However, he is hopelessly confused in his desire for nationalism—independence for Wales and Scotland—in a united Europe. He does not want a united Europe where nations of Britain such as Scotland and Wales can become prominent regions with a serious voice in Europe, for which the existing arrangements provide. He wants to fragment Europe into little nationalistic enclaves, which would defeat the purpose of enlargement and be parochial and dangerous.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) spoke with his usual authority, derived from years of experience and expertise in foreign affairs. We enjoyed his speech.
	I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) even though I never agree with him. It is interesting that he omitted to repeat the words that he used in 1998, which go to the heart of Conservative opposition to the treaty and their flawed position on Europe. The hon. Gentleman stated in 1998:
	"We should seek a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU. That renegotiation should start from the premise that we will stay in the EU if we can strike a deal that is in our interests and pull out if we cannot."
	That is the hidden agenda of the Conservative position—at least, the Conservative position that the hon. Gentleman advocates and which was put forward in the last general election and roundly defeated

John Bercow: The Minister should know that the run-up to every treaty represents a renegotiation. But let the Minister now answer the question that was ducked by the Foreign Secretary. Following the passage of the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality in the Amsterdam treaty, can the Minister identify one directive or regulation that was repealed in consequence?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend answered that question very directly. The difference between this Government negotiating a new treaty or an amendment to an existing one is that we go in to try to obtain the best deal for Britain, not with an excuse to try to pull out, which is what the Conservative position amounts to.
	When I considered the absence from the debate and from the Chamber for most of the past few days of those rather embittered serried ranks of Conservative Eurosceptics, I wondered what they had been up to. What they had been up to was canvassing for the different candidates for the coming leadership of the Tory party.
	I have a revealing quote from the distinguished political commentator, Peter Oborne. He referred to his conversations with Conservative Members when they come back from consulting their constituents on the leadership election. He said:
	"I have been party to these conversations and they have something of the flavour of the exchanges that must have gone on at the Royal Society between Victorian explorers just back from the African interior. They tell each other of horrible customs, quaint beliefs and a strange, primitive mindset entirely alien to modern, sophisticated, metropolitan man."
	We have also had a revealing set of confusions in the different statements on Europe and on the Nice treaty from the leadership candidates. I have been indulging in an exercise in political masochism in reading their statements.
	The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), a well-known advocate of entry to the single currency and a supporter of the Nice treaty, said:
	"Our official policy at the general election was . . . difficult to reconcile with Britain's continued membership of the European Union. When I am leader, these will not be the official policies of the party."
	The right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) said that he would be "friendly" to pro-Euro Tories on the Conservative Benches. That is a welcome change.
	The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said that he was "not obsessed with them"—the pro-Euro Tories—and that he welcomed "intelligent opposition".
	The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) did not say much about Europe in his statement, but he did say that he had
	"much to learn from Tory MEPs",
	which is comforting.
	The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), another Conservative leadership candidate, interestingly said that, during the debate on the euro, and indeed during any possible referendum campaign, he would "temporarily stand down" all those pro-Euro Tories in leading positions.
	There we have it. Iain would put Ken in the sin bin, David would not be obsessed with him being there, Spanish Michael would be friendly, and noble Michael had much to learn from him—and Ken actually wants to lead that lot. Instead of 14 pints a day, he would need 20 pints a day to keep sane.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain: In a minute.
	The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made an extraordinary statement yesterday, and it was backed by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who spoke with his usual force tonight. I recognise his principled commitment on the European question. We have often debated it together and sometimes we have been on the same side of the argument in the past, but on different sides of the Chamber.
	The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green want a referendum now, but even the most fervently pro-euro person knows that it is not in Britain's interests to rush into the euro now. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, a potential leader of the Conservative party, wants a referendum when nobody wants to go in. What if he lost such a referendum? He would be catapulted into the single currency, whether or not he liked it and whether or not it was in Britain's interests—and it would not be. It may be in the Conservative party's interests to call for a referendum now, but it is not in the country's interests. The Tories want to use the electorate to solve a problem for them, which is a cynical and fraudulent use of the referendum issue.

William Cash: I have discussed European matters with the Minister many times, including in Papua New Guinea, where we agreed on a considerable number of issues. There is one thing on which I think all the Conservative leadership candidates, with perhaps one exception, would agree. As Disraeli said, the Tory party is a national party or it is nothing. That is not to say that it is nationalistic, but it is patriotic, unlike the Government.

Peter Hain: I spent a happy couple of days head hunting in Papua New Guinea with the hon. Gentleman, who looked very striking in his swimming suit.
	The Conservative position on the Nice treaty, as annunciated by both Front-Bench speakers, is essentially politically dishonest. They say they want enlargement, but they deny us the vehicle for achieving it and making it possible. If they got their way on Nice, Britain would lose the increased share of votes in European decision making that we secured—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick). We would also block the much-needed European modernisation that is necessary to speed up decisions and to increase efficiency, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) pointed out. Furthermore, we would lose the enormous opportunities for increased prosperity and jobs that will be provided when 200 million extra people join the single trading market, free of border tariffs and controls.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) said in an excellent contribution, the British share of trade has increased and British companies have done more business as every new country has joined the European Union. That will continue to happen through enlargement. If the Tories got their way on blocking the Nice treaty, we would insult our friends and allies, including the Cypriots, Maltese, Czechs, Lithuanians, Poles and others, many of whom my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been meeting in recent weeks and days. They desperately hope to join and want us to sign up to Neath—[Hon. Members: "Neath?"] I would like us to sign up to Neath as well.
	If the Tories got their way, they would deny Britain the increased stability and security that will be created when more countries are absorbed under the banner of European democracy and peace—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). They made the last election a referendum on Europe, to use their leader's words, and they lost it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) said, they are stuck in the past. Labour is part of the future, driving forward economic and political reform in Europe to make Britain more prosperous and secure and to make Europe more economically competitive, just, democratically accountable and peaceful.

Menzies Campbell: As the Minister knows, the Opposition amendment seeks a referendum on the Nice treaty. Has he been able to identify an essential constitutional component in the treaty that would justify a referendum, but which was absent from the Maastricht treaty? The previous Conservative Government did not think that that treaty required a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom.

Peter Hain: I was coming to that point, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made very well in his speech. For all the treaty's importance in respect of enlargement, it is far less important and momentous—to use his words—than the Maastricht treaty. The Conservatives denied people the opportunity for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty, yet they want one on a treaty that is far less complicated and momentous. They employ double standards, but we have got used to that. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), whom I greatly respect, joined the Conservatives in requesting a referendum on Nice.
	It is important to take heed of the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda that if we delay ratification, we delay the whole programme of enlargement. In that case, the goals of 2004 could not be achieved and many countries would be denied the opportunities and security which they crave and which we are trying to provide.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies), who always makes eloquent and expert speeches on Europe, made several points about qualified majority voting. It is important to answer them in detail. We shall agree to QMV when it is in Britain's interests; when it is not, we shall not agree to it. It is as simple as that. The Opposition agreed to move from unanimity to QMV, and they gave away the veto, as they call it, in the Single European Act 1985, to which Margaret Thatcher signed up, and in the Maastricht treaty, which John Major signed, on some fundamental articles. They include all general single market legislation and almost all the environment provisions. Good. I supported that. It has clearly been in Britain's interest to facilitate cleaning up the environment and implementing the single market.
	We do not therefore oppose QMV in principle. Now that we have established that, Conservative Members should explain why they oppose QMV on such measures in the Nice treaty as appointments of common foreign and security policy special representatives. Unanimity could clearly delay important work, such as that done by envoys, or allow one member state to hold out against the best candidate for the job. Why do the Conservatives oppose QMV for the salary and pension of the registrar of the Court of First Instance? What is so earth-shattering for our national interest that a British veto is required for that?
	Why do Conservative Members oppose QMV for the rules of procedure of the European Court of Justice? In that case, QMV would facilitate introducing changes to improve efficiency so that justice will no longer be delayed or denied to British companies that seek redress. Those questions are important and Conservative Members need to answer them.
	At Nice, we agreed to extend QMV when it would have genuine benefits for Britain's interests and increase the efficiency of European Union institutions. We said that we would not agree to QMV on tax, social security and the European Union's budget. As before, we would insist on Britain's agreement before any EU action was taken on those issues. Qualified majority voting has delivered for Britain. When more QMV would deliver for Britain, we backed it at Nice; when it would not deliver, we opposed it.

Angus Robertson: I support the Minister's position on QMV. However, I want to ask about giving constitutional regions and nations the right to direct access to the European Court of Justice. The UK delegation blocked that in December, yet, only a month ago, the Scottish Executive, led by the Labour party, signed a declaration describing such access as vital. The Belgian Government have tabled the measure again. Will the Government support the Scottish Executive?

Peter Hain: We shall consider any representations from the Scottish Executive. However, we are currently considering the union of nation states. For those purposes, Scotland and Wales are part of the United Kingdom and are represented in that context.
	Let me answer the question of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) about the common agricultural policy. He said that the treaty ignored it, but he and the Conservative party did not pursue an energetic programme of CAP reform in their 18 years in office. They got nowhere. We are reforming the CAP; the Prime Minister secured an important package of reforms at the Berlin Council in 1999, when it was decided to cut CAP spending in real terms by next year. That will deliver a net economic benefit to European Union consumers and taxpayers of 7.5 billion euro by 2006. However, we need go further towards comprehensive reform of the CAP. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), one of my predecessors and a good Minister for Europe, made a good speech in which he said that Nice was not about CAP reform but about treaty change: it was about making the necessary institutional changes for the EU to welcome new members. We do not need treaty change to reform the CAP. We are already doing that.

Michael Howard: Will the Minister answer the point that I raised on the extension of QMV to article 100? Will he explain how that serves Britain's national interests, unless he envisages that the UK is about to encounter severe financial difficulties and may find itself in need of assistance?

Peter Hain: The use of QMV in article 100 does not undermine the no-bail-out rule set out in article 103. Article 103 makes it clear that there will be no bailing out of member states, whether of Britain or of any other state. That applies as much to pension liabilities as it does to Government liabilities. That is the answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. If he wants me to write to him in more detail, I shall be happy to do so.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) is one of my distinguished predecessors. I take much to heart the importance that she attaches to taking the message to the regions of Britain. With 3.5 million jobs being retained and advanced through EU membership, the benefits of EU membership are felt in the regions and nations of Britain.
	An historic move is contained in the Nice treaty—to enlarge Europe, to reunite Europe and to bring together all the nations that were divided from western Europe by either the second world war or the cold war.
	Enlargement represents an historic opportunity to end the cold war division of Europe and to reunite our continent. Bringing in the countries of central and eastern Europe will consolidate democracy and consolidate good governance, the rule of law and respect for human rights and minority rights. It will contribute to peace in Europe, because EU member states settle their differences through discussion, not confrontation. A larger European Union will be a stronger and safer Europe. Crime, terrorism, drugs and pollution can be addressed only through joint action across the continent.
	Without enlargement, western Europe would always face the threat of instability, conflicts and mass migration on its borders. Enlargement will make new and existing member states richer, bringing long-term prosperity and employment. Accession of the central Europeans will create the largest single market in the world, with nearly 500 million people, opening new opportunities for British companies. Independent research suggests that the accession of the seven largest central European candidates could increase British gross domestic product by £1.75 billion.
	Nice is necessary for enlargement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said. The enlarged EU that we want cannot work effectively without the changes that the Nice treaty makes to the EU's institutions and procedures. That is why all the member states, including Ireland, have agreed that the ratification of the Nice treaty should proceed to the agreed timetable, so that the EU can be ready by the end of 2002 to begin to welcome new members.
	It would theoretically be possible to admit new member states on the basis of the existing EU treaties, a point made in argument against the Government during the debate. However, that is not practical or politically possible. The present treaties do not include the institutional changes that are required for an enlarged EU to work. Member states are clear that the changes that Nice makes are necessary for the accession of new member states.
	As we said all along, Nice is necessary for enlargement. Nice in that context is indeed nice. Nice is not only necessary for enlargement, but it is desirable. With Nice, we won a good deal for Britain. The treaty increases the relative weight of Britain's vote in the Council of Ministers for the first time. That is why I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 151, Noes 388.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
	The House divided: Ayes 385, Noes 148.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [28 June],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill:

Committal of the Bill

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Programming of proceedings

2. Proceedings in Committee of the whole House and all remaining proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) shall be programmed.

Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading

3.—(1) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed in four allotted days.
	(2) An allotted day is one on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day.—[Mr. Heppell].
	The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 148.

Question accordingly agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question—[28 June]
	Question again proposed,
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed tomorrow.—[Mr. Heppell.]

DEREGULATION AND REGULATORY REFORM COMMITTEE

Motion made,
	That Mr. Russell Brown, Mr. David Chaytor, Brian Cotter, John Cryer, Mr. Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr. Paul Goodman, Andy King, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Mr. Andrew Love, John McDonnell, Mr. Denis Murphy, Dr. Doug Naysmith, Mr. Peter Pike, Mr. Andrew Rosindell, Mr. Anthony Steen, Ian Stewart and Brian White be members of the Select Committee on Deregulation and Regulatory Reform.— [Mr. Heppell.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Hartlebury 449 Safety Action Group

Peter Luff: It is a great but sad privilege to present the petition of 572 signatories, organised by the Hartlebury 449 safety action group. It is sad because the group came into existence in response to the recent death of a teenage girl on the very dangerous A449 between Kidderminster and Worcester at Hartlebury. The petitioners have seen the middle section of the road become immeasurably safer since the introduction of a radical traffic-calming scheme by the Highways Agency, and now feel that it is time to apply similar measures to the rest of the road, especially in the Hartlebury area. They hope that the petition will encourage the Highways Agency to move speedily. It states:
	"the A449 trunk road between Kidderminster and Crossway Green is so dangerous to the lives and property of residents, pedestrians and drivers that traffic calming measures are vital for the community.
	The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions to take the necessary steps to introduce traffic calming measures, notwithstanding any requirement for de-trunking this road."
	To lie upon the Table.

ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY FUELS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]

Helen Clark: This is a large topic and I obviously cannot cover all aspects of it tonight. I have therefore chosen to concentrate on the areas in which I have been personally involved.
	I realise that some of the issues that I am going to raise may not be entirely the responsibility of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). Many of us are finding that the new departmental boundaries take a bit of getting used to; let us hope that the change will be positive. As the issues that I shall raise concern more than one Department, there is a mechanism for passing them for reply to the Minister with relevant responsibilities.
	We should abjure parochialism in relation to national and European Community boundaries. I should like to give personal thanks and pay tribute to the delegation of French MPs whom I met today and with whom I discussed many of these topics.
	During my lifetime and that of the majority of hon. Members, growth in road traffic has been so fast that it has been impossible to cope with its consequences for congestion, pollution, health and climate change. It is unsustainable, however many new roads we build. Undoubtedly, in the longer term, we shall adopt new patterns of road use and may travel shorter distances to work, own fewer private cars and rent more. I find that solution very convenient, as I am a non-driver.
	Public transport certainly needs to be improved, and new forms will be developed, including road transport. At present, however, few people are willing to give up their cars or the freedom and flexibility that that mode of transport provides. Or, if they are willing in theory, they cannot see how their life style can be maintained without cars. People cannot, overnight or alone, decide to relocate their homes, work, children, shopping, school and leisure facilities, however concerned they are about pollution and its effect on health, climate and the future of the planet.
	People in more remote areas have even less choice and have to travel, both to obtain the majority of their goods and services and to work. That is where the Government must intervene. We elect Governments partly to provide the solutions to problems that we cannot solve by acting alone; they should provide solutions in the short term and address and influence longer-term trends. Part of the short-term solution to the problems caused by increasing road traffic is the development and supply of alternative fuels. Hon. Members may know that, during my period of service in the previous Parliament on the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, I consistently championed the use of road fuel gases in vehicles. Such gases are consistently more environmentally friendly in terms of air quality strategy pollutants than petrol or diesel are. If we consider just one pollutant, particulates, the health gains from reducing particle levels are greater than for those of any other pollutant. About 20,000 people a year suffer medical problems owing to particulates. Most—75 per cent. of them—particulate emissions from road transport are from diesel engines.
	In recent tests, liquefied petroleum gas engines have produced no measurable particulate matter at any speed. Recent tests also show that, at 30 miles per hour, although diesel engines fitted with traps are better than non-fitted engines, even they produce significant quantities of particulate matter. Clean diesel is an advance, but it is not the answer.
	A major advantage of LPG is that the technology is available now and offers significant benefits to human health and the environment. Clearly, what is—and was—needed to encourage its development is the right fiscal policy, as other countries such as Holland and Italy already have large road fuel gas vehicle populations. During the previous Parliament, I welcomed successive Budgets that gave incentives to road fuel gases, but even now, only some 39,000 vehicles in the UK use LPG, compared with 1 million in Italy, a country of similar size, and 400,000 in the much smaller country of Holland.
	In our country, road fuel gases are on the brink of full market viability, and significant numbers of drivers and fleet owners are realising the benefits to themselves and the environment of switching to cleaner fuel. One LPG pump is installed every day on a forecourt somewhere. There is now the prospect of a nationwide network of pumps so that drivers need not fear running out of fuel. There are still problems in rural areas. As I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech, there is a need for targeted help—again, as in other countries—to enable rural garages in places such as Scotland to install LPG infrastructure. That should be seen as part of a wider package to sustain the countryside.
	On road fuel gases, we are nearly there; let us not throw it all away. Fleet owners need long-term confidence to invest, and many of them remember when a previous Government summarily removed incentives for LPG use and killed off a nascent market.
	Powershift, the Government programme that encourages people to shift to cleaner fuels, did its own research this year and reported on its website:
	"The research also considered the importance of a number of market factors in influencing the decision to switch to clean fuels . . . The strongest concern was a lack of confidence in the Government maintaining the fuel duty differential".
	This Government have promised to retain the fiscal incentive until at least 2004, but I ask: what next?

Simon Thomas: The hon. Lady's work on this matter is well known to the House. Will she join me in congratulating Powershift on its work so far and urge the Minister and the Government not only to retain but expand the scheme as much as possible, not only to include older vehicles, which would contribute greatly to tackling climate change, but to consider other fuel alternatives, such as fuel cells and biodiesel, as they come on the market?

Helen Clark: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I agree with everything that he has said, and hope that he will join me in approaching the Minister at a later and more convenient date. I suggest that the measures be extended.
	Just when the market is about to deliver, let us not offer the prospect of the advantage disappearing in three years' time. People are rational consumers; they will not invest in something that may become inviable in the foreseeable future. As the hon. Gentleman helpfully reminded us, recent consultation on Powershift has suggested that its help for conversion may be phased out at the end of next year. There are certainly other technologies that may require support in the longer term, but as I said, LPG is here, now. In government, we should deal in the here and now and in achievable solutions. LPG is already delivering. We cannot afford to throw away its environmental benefits in favour of a future of uncertain alternatives.
	There is an article on the Powershift website by Professor Garel Rhys, the director of the Centre of Automotive Industry Research at Cardiff university business school, with which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar. He writes:
	"It is important that the incentives are not withdrawn prematurely . . . whatever the state of public finances."
	I agree. Powershift can and should be reviewed, but let us not throw the baby out with the bath water.
	I turn to the challenge posed by the rubbish mountain. We have a problem of too much waste going to landfill. Only about 9 per cent. of household waste was recycled last year—a shocking figure. About 85 per cent. of domestic waste goes to landfill. The European landfill directive will force us to reduce biodegradable domestic waste sent to landfill by 2016 to no more than 35 per cent. of the 1995 level. That will not be easy.
	We also have a problem of slow progress towards developing sufficient sources of renewable energy. The Government are committed to a target of 10 per cent. of electricity generation by 2010, but the present level achieved is only 2.8 per cent. There is a long way to go. Some people have suggested that large-scale incineration of waste with an energy by-product is the answer to both problems. I am not so sure that incineration deserves the support that it would gain from being included in the renewables order.
	Incineration is unpopular with the public. It has a poor history of producing unacceptable emissions. Low environmental standards were applied to municipal incinerators as recently as the early 1990s. Incinerator technology does not need subsidy. However, we must be careful not to get caught by the shackles of vocabulary.
	There is a danger that generating energy from waste by pyrolysis may be excluded from the renewables order. Pyrolysis is not the same as incineration. It has the advantage of recycling energy from waste effectively, without the emission problem. Modern pyrolysis technology is much more able than incineration to meet or improve upon the requirements of the new directive on emissions. It is an exciting technology, but is not yet at the stage of market viability.
	A new generation of pyrolysis plants would need to produce much more electricity from the same amount of waste as handled by current pyrolysis plants. To do that, new cutting-edge designs must be introduced. It is unlikely that anyone would be prepared to take the risks of trying to establish pyrolysis plants on a commercial scale without the support of the renewables obligation. Can my hon. Friend assure me that pyrolysis, as distinct from incineration, will be given favourable consideration for inclusion in the renewables order?
	I am concerned also about the deteriorating situation in relation to CHP—combined heat and power. The Government strategy for stimulating CHP is, I believe, out for consultation. CHP was set to double by 2010, saving more than 25 per cent. of the current shortfall in the UK target of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. However, I understand from a major company in the Peterborough area, British Sugar, which has used CHP since the 1920s—yes, I had to look that up—that Government targets are under serious threat, owing to a combination of factors, including the electricity trading arrangements and the need to exempt CHP fully from the climate change levy.
	There is an urgent need to stimulate CHP as part of the Government's sustainable energy policy. I urge the Minister responsible—in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, perhaps—to ensure that a comprehensive strategy is published soon.
	My final topic this evening is biofuels, which offer great reductions in emissions. The production of biofuels could be of great benefit in rural regeneration as another source of employment, particularly in my region, the eastern region. The matter was raised in another place last Thursday by my noble Friend Lord Palmer, and I was pleased to see the Minister's reply. He agreed that it was important to investigate the use of biofuels, and that fiscal and other measures might encourage their development. He specifically mentioned rapeseed-based biodiesel.
	I am particularly interested in how far the use of such fuels in aviation has progressed. I asked a question about that in the House in January and I was informed that the Department of Trade and Industry was then reviewing what it termed a "modest proposal" to use a fuel derived from biomass instead of aviation kerosene.
	The growth in aviation is even more dramatic than that in road transport. The number of planes using UK airports has doubled since 1985. Air travel worldwide is expected to reach double 1995 levels by 2015. In 1992, air transport accounted for 3.5 per cent. of greenhouse gas emissions, but by 2050 it could be as high as 15 per cent. Those are worrying figures. A White Paper is expected which will attempt to address the many issues involved. I ask the Minister to ensure that, at the very least, as for road transport, the use of cleaner, more environmentally friendly fuels is a priority.
	I did not notice anything on the subject in the Green Paper published last December, but there is considerable interest in it, including in the aviation industry. I happened to be at an event hosted by British Airways this week, and I shall certainly be following up some contacts that I made there.
	In all the areas upon which I have touched there is a balance to be struck between incentivising technology with real promise and technology which has enthusiastic backers but little prospect of viability. Making the wrong choice results not only in wasteful expenditure, but deprives us of attainable environmental gain. As I said in the debate last week, transport being now part of another Department, I am concerned that transport policy making could be less informed by environmental considerations, and I am far from alone in that. There is a danger that economic drivers will be given precedence without check by environmental and social considerations, the two of which are far from independent, or, indeed, always in conflict.
	During the past few years, we have learned a lot about the processes and benefits of sustainable development, about how we can achieve economic benefits without social or environmental costs, and, indeed, in the best so-called win-win-win scenarios, about achieving gains on all fronts. We must not discard all that experience now. We must be very careful where we build new roads. We must properly assess and understand the projected impacts, both short and long term, and investigate creative alternatives.
	We must be equally and similarly vigilant concerning measures to address the increase in aviation and the environmental and other problems that it will cause. We must continue to encourage investment in other forms of transport, both public and private, and not forget the aims of the integrated transport strategy developed by the Deputy Prime Minister in the previous Parliament. We must encourage existing and new forms of cleaner transport and other fuels.

David Jamieson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) on securing the debate. She has taken much interest in environmental matters and has always brought her considerable experience to debates such as this, as she has done tonight.
	In answer to one of my hon. Friend's latter questions, I can assure her that, while I am in this job and my hon. Friends are in their jobs, transport policy will be informed by environmental concerns.
	My hon. Friend raised a number of matters that fall within the responsibility of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I shall draw those to the attention of my colleagues.
	My hon. Friend made important comments on transport and traffic, underlining the issues addressed in the 10-year plan. I am pleased to be responsible for cleaner fuels and vehicles in the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, and, like my hon. Friend, I have a personal conviction about the potential to raise transport quality as well as improve the environment. We can do that by reducing air pollution and the resulting health problems, making vehicles quieter, enhancing local liveability, helping to bring about an urban renaissance, cutting greenhouse gases and opening the way for haulage to operate more flexibly.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of liquid petroleum gas, which is better known as LPG, but that is only part of the Government's agenda. I welcome the opportunity briefly to outline that agenda and its underpinning strategy. The components are to secure the maximum take-up of today's environmentally friendly fuels, bring forward the next generation of green fuels and lay the foundations for the United Kingdom to benefit from the longer-term prospects for fuel-cell propulsion and the low-carbon economy.
	That means using the right mix of measures, including, as my hon. Friend mentioned, appropriate taxation of the different fuels and types of vehicle, in line with the Government's statement of intent on environmental taxation. The strategy includes grants to provide incentives and support for motorists and businesses in buying green vehicles, action to promote information and awareness of new fuels, and partnership with other players such as the vehicle and fuel industries, local government and others to break the logjams and make things happen.
	I have briefly described the structure and sinews of the strategy, but I want now to fill out the picture. As my hon. Friend said, LPG is here now and is already delivering. That success follows the action taken by the Government, who have put in place the low duty for LPG and compressed natural gas, or CNG. The rate is 6p per litre, compared with 45p for petrol and diesel, which means a pump price of about 40p. We have established the Powershift grant and promotion programme, and increased the scheme's funding substantially in the 2000 comprehensive spending review, giving it a firm three-year forward budget of £30 million.
	The oil companies have responded with impressive forecourt investment. As my hon. Friend said, there are now more than 750 LPG outlets and the number is growing daily. We have a strong and high-quality conversion industry. The car companies are now starting to offer LPG models as standard, off-the-assembly line options, so that buyers do not have to arrange separate conversion. That further establishes LPG as a mainstream vehicle option. However, technology does not stand still. Conventional fuels and vehicles have become much cleaner in the past few years, which challenges the gas technologies to raise their environmental performance in the same way.
	My hon. Friend noted that the Government are currently consulting on the future direction of the Powershift programme. We are maintaining the funding for LPG grants—there is no question about that—but we have suggested that grants should now focus on the conversion of light-duty goods vehicles, as the biggest air quality benefit now comes from displacement of diesel. Hence the proposals to switch resources progressively towards such vehicles. Some responses argue that refocusing of the grants should be taken more slowly. That view and all comments will be carefully considered.
	The Government also want to push hard on CNG, which is the other main gas fuel that is now available. It has huge potential to make heavy goods vehicles significantly cleaner and, importantly, quieter. We have put the economic parameters in place—guaranteed low duty for CNG, plus the grants available through the Powershift and CleanUp programmes—to assist HGV operators in investing in new CNG-fuelled vehicles and in converting existing vehicles. There is still a chicken-and-egg problem with the fuel network: there are not many CNG vehicles, so there are not many outlets, and vice versa. We have begun two pilot initiatives—one with the London Mayor and Transport for London and another with Manchester city council—to demonstrate how a local agency can break into the circle by bringing together prospective CNG users and suppliers.
	The second strand of the strategy is introducing the next generation of fuels. As my hon. Friend said, we are considering hydrogen and biofuels, which can start to decouple mobility from climate change. That is crucial. My hon. Friend mentioned biofuels, which are practical and can replace and be blended with fossil petrol or diesel in existing engines. When compared with fossil fuel, the carbon saving is highest when the biofuel is made with waste or recycled material. It is less when the feed stock is specially grown using fertilisers and energy.
	We intend this country to be a leader in biofuel technologies. The Chancellor launched the greener fuels challenge in last year's pre-Budget report to identify the most promising fuels for tax treatment. That led to the 20p per litre reduction in duty for biodiesel in the Budget. That will encourage biodiesel, which is produced in the UK with used vegetable oil.
	In the Finance Act 2001, we took powers to set low duties for pilot projects aimed at bringing forward other new fuels. Companies will shortly be invited to introduce their proposals, and we aim to announce the successful pilots later this year.
	Bio-ethanol made from agricultural waste material or from municipal refuse is especially interesting. It delivers double benefits: a new source of farm income, and a better option for waste disposal. It is a productive alternative to incineration or landfill. The potential is obvious.
	I am aware of the arguments that there should be an even larger duty cut for biodiesel to open the way for biodiesel made from virgin rapeseed, and that biodiesel duty should be on a par with LPG or CNG.
	As my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in the other place, the Government will continue to keep all biofuels under review, including biodiesel production from rapeseed. Doubtless, continuing developments will occur in technology and rapeseed cultivation. The case for even lower duty on biodiesel, on a par with LPG and CNG, was addressed in the debate on the Finance Bill. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained that the prime purpose of the low duty on LPG and CNG was to help combat air quality problems. Experts generally agree that biodiesel is no better than fossil diesel on the most important emissions. Rapeseed biodiesel offers some carbon savings compared with fossil diesel, but the benefits are fairly limited because of the amount of fertilisers and energy used in growing rapeseed.
	If we look even further ahead, there is the firm prospect of electric drive vehicles running on fuel-cell technology. That opens the way for a clutch of benefits. They include higher vehicle efficiency, better in-car amenities, zero tailpipe emissions and lower carbon emissions. Carbon emissions will be almost zero when the hydrogen is renewably generated.
	We want this country to be out in front. In the autumn, my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry will produce a discussion document, entitled "Powering Future Vehicles." It will set out our strategy for promoting the development, introduction and take-up of fuel cell and other new technologies, and for ensuring that the United Kingdom automotive industry is fully engaged in that process. That will open an extremely important discussion, with great significance for the whole automotive industry and the environmental footprint of transport.
	In the time available, I have ranged widely on the subject, and I hope that that has been useful. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for initiating this evening's debate and for her presentation of the case. If she believes that any issues have not been covered in adequate detail, I will ensure that my officials provide a response shortly. I am glad that the matter has been aired and I look forward to discussing it in future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.